J 


v». 


iSii 

L  ^^Jmii\\ 

r^/  ■,  \ 

^^^^^  >   '/          -•           -    Mr 

'*'• 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

CARLI:  Consortium  of  Academic  and  Researcli  Libraries  in  Illinois 


http://www.archive.org/details/presentmentofrevOOwalk 


PRE  SENTMENT 


OF    THE 


Kev.  WILLIAM  F.  WALKER, 


HIS     ANSWER, 


AND 


THE  VERDICT  OF   THE  COURT. 


5Prteat«  Smprcggbiu* 


CHICAGO: 

GEER  &  WILSON,  Book  axd  Job  Printers  ; 

Daily  Journal's  Printing  Establishment : 

MDCCCXLVI. 


PREFACE. 


THsfiictof  a  clergyman  having  been  presented  and  tried  is  commonly  received  as 
prima  facie  evidence  against  him.  A  knowledge  of  the  facts  in  tlie  case  can  alone  cor- 
rect or  modify  such  unfavorable  impression.  In  this  belief,  the  following  Presentment, 
Answer  and  Verdict  are  now  printed  for  such  as  may  receive  ihcm. 

It  is  not  the  intention  here  to  furnish  a  history,  but  an  explanation.  This,  it  l8 
thought,  will  suffice  to  prevent  some  harslincss  of  judgment  in  a  case  that  has  been 
widely  reported ;  and  save  froBsi  utter  condemnation  one  who  has  not  the  heart  to  nar- 
rate in  detail  a  history.  wliich,'it  is  believed,  would,  beyond  a  peradventure,  elTectually 
and  forever  vindicate  him  from  reproach,  because  on  ex  parte  statements  alone,  without 
a  notice  to  the  accused,  and  contrary  to  tlie  Canon,  three  presbyters  and  two 
laymen  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  who  were  known  to  be  "  not  with"  him,  four 
of  whom  were,  on  very  distinct  grounds,  esteemed  partial  in  themselves,  and  had 
previously  comjdained  of  him,  one  of  whom  had  solicited  of  the  Bishop  a  pros- 
ecution of  him,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  others,  had  given  a  pledge  for  the  costs  at- 
tending the  same,  should  it  be  granted, by  appointment  of  the  Bishop,  presented  him; 
and  because  tiie  Bishop,  who  could  appoint  such  a  committee  of  investigation,  employ 
counsel  to  prosecute  the  accused,  declare  him  criminal,  and,  at  the  same  time,  wish  to 
eit  as  a  Judge  to  try  him,  and  finally  appear  as  a  witness  to  sustain  charges  which  him- 
self had  caused  to  be  preferred,  entertained  such  presentment. 

The  desire  is  to  submit  to  some  friends  of  the  Church  what  rresenters  alleged  of  the 
accused ;  what  there  was  really  in  their  charges, and  what  they  would  have  found  to  have 
formed  their  substance  had  they  "  examined  the  case"  impartially  ;  and  what  the  Court 
adjudged  upon  the  same.  Tliree  authentic,  un(niestioned  papers— the  I'resentmeut,  An- 
swer, and  Verdict  of  the  Court— with  those  to  which  they  refer,  and  which,  therefore 
form  a  part  of  them,  contain  sufficient  for  tliis  end.  To  do  more,  to  narrate  in  full  de- 
tails preliminary  to  and  connected  with  the  presentment  and  trial,  would  harrass  anew 
one's  feelings  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  the  attempt  inexpedient,  at  least  for  the 
present;  though  a  perfect  record  of  all  has  been  carefully  preserved.  May  the  follow- 
ing avert  a  measure  of  the  disgrace  and  ruin  which  have  been  attempted!  May  tlic 
Spirit  of  God  speedily  brood  over  all  passions  that  have  been  tumultuous,  heal  all  di- 
visions, and  subdue  all,  of  every  order,  in  the  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church, 
to  unity,  love  and  i)cace. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Canons  under  wliich  the  Presentment  tliat  follows  claims  to 
liave  been  f^und  and  tried. 

Of  Offences  for  which  Ministers  shall  he  tried  and  punished. 
Section  1.  Every  Minister  sliall  be  liable  to  j)resentment  and  trial, 
for  any  crime  or  gross  immorality,  for  disorderly  conduct,  for  drunken- 
ncsijl^for  profane  swearing,  for  frequenting  places  most  liable  to  be  abused 
to  licentiousness,  and  for"  violation  of  the  Constitution  or  Canons  of  this 
Church,  or  of  the  Diocese  to  which  he  belongs ;  and,  on  being  found 
guilty,  he  shall  be  admonished,  suspended,  or  degraded,  according  to  the 
Canons  of  the  Diocese  in  which  the  trial  takes  place,  until  otherwise  pro- 
vided for  by  the  General  Convention. 

Section  2.  If  any  Minister  of  this  Church  shall  be  accused,  by  pub- 
lic nnnor,  of  discontinuing  all  exercise  of  the  ministerial  office  without 
lawful  cause,  or  of  living  in  the  habitual  disuse  of  public  worship,  or  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  according  to  the  offices  of  this  Church,  or  of  being  guilty 
of  scandalous,  disorderly,  or  immoral  conduct,  or  of  violating  the  Canons, 
or  prcacliing  or  inculcating  heretical  doctrine,  it  shidl  Ije  the  duty  of  the 
Bishop,  or  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  the  clerical  members  of  the  Standing 
Committee,  to  see  that  an  inquiry  be  instituted  as  to  the  truth  of  such 
public  nmior.  And  in  case  of  the  individual  being  proceeded  against  and 
convicted,  according  to  such  ride  or  process  as  may  be  provided  by  the 
Conventions  of  the  respective  Dioceses,  he  shall  be  admonished,  suspend- 
ed, or  degraded,  as  the  nature  of  the  case  may  require,  in  conformity 
vrith  their  respective  Constitutions  and  Canons. — Canon  XXXVII.  of  the 
Geneial  Convention. 

Of  the  Trial  of  a  Clergyman,  not  being  a  Bishop. 

AVhenever  any  minister  of  this  Diocese,  not  being  a  Bishop  thereof, 
shall  become  "liable  to  presentment  and  trial,"  under  the  provisions  of 
any  Canon  of  the  General  or  Diocesan  Convention,  the  mode  of  proceed- 
ing in  this  Diocese  shall  be  as  follows,  viz  : 

Sect.  1.  Whenever  the  Bishop  shall  have  reason  to  believe,  on 
information  given  by  a  major  part  in  number  of  the  Vestry  of  any 
Church  of  which  the  'accused  is  a  minister — or  by  any  three  Presbyters 
of  this  Diocese  entitled  to  seats  in  the  Convention — or  from  public  rumor, 
as  contemplated  by  section  2,  Canon  37,  of  the  General  Convention,*  that 

•  Information  was  not  given  to  the  I'.ishop  in  tlic  case  now  submitted  in  eitlier  of  the 
first  two  modes  pointed  out  by  the  Canon  ;  that  is,  either  "  by  a  major  part,"  or  any  part 
"  of  tlic  Vestry  of  the  Church  of  whicli  tlie  accused"  was  and  "  is"  now  '•  minister ;"  or 
"by  any  three  Presbyters  of  this  Diocese  entitled  to  seats  in  the  Convention."  A  let- 
ter of  misrepresentation  was  addressed  to  him  by  eight  laymen— four  of  them  uncon- 
nected with  the  Church,  three  of  them  not  regular  attendants  on  her  services,  two  only 
of  them  communicants — who,  under  the  inliuence  of  a  single  master  spirit  among  them, 
— a  communicant, — whose  motto  seems  ever  to  have  been,  "rule  or  ruin,''  in  whoso 
way,  iu  effecting  the  diversion  of  certain  monies  raised  for  a  specific  object  coiniected 


any  clergyman  is  under  the  imputation  of  liaving  been  pruilty  of  any  of- 
fence or  misconduct,  for  which  he  is  liable  to  be  tried,  and  that  the  inter- 
est of  the  Church  rcf[uires  an  investigation,  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  appoint 
five  persons,  of  whom  three  at  least  shall  be  presbyters,  to  examine  the 
case  ;*  a  majority  of  whom  may  make  such  examination  ;  and  if  there  is 
in  their  opinion  suflicient  ground  for  presentment,  shall  present  the  cler- 
gj'man  accordingly. 

Sect.  2.  A  presentment  being  made,  in  the  mode  above  pre- 
scribed, the  Bishoj)  shall  cause  a  copy  of  it  to  be  served  on  the  accused  ; 
and  shall  also  nominate  eight  presbyters  of  this  Diocese,  entitled  to  seats 
in  the  Convention,  and  not  being  parties  in  the  presentment,  and  cause 
a  list  of  their  naxnes  to  be  served  on  the  accused,  who  shall,  •within  thirty 
days  after  such  service,  select  five  of  them  and  notify  their  names  in  wri- 
ting to  the  Bishop;  and  if  he  shall  not  give  such  notification  to  the  Bishop 

with  the  Church  to  another  interest,  he  had  suiiposed  the  accused  to  have  stood,  whose 
hostility  was  thereby  provoked,  and  who.  in  coiiso<iviPiice.  liad  resolved  on  causing  the 
eeparation  of  the  accused  fi-om  Trinity  Cliurch,  (this  was  the  ultima  Thnle  of  the  0))p06i- 
tion,) — had  come  to  act  together  for  the  same  object:  that  letter,  asking  that  the  ac- 
cused might  be  tried,  and  giving  a  pledge  for  tlie  costs  attending  the  prosecutitm,  sta- 
tedj*'  we  propose  to  prefer  other  charges  against  him." 

Whether  on  such  information  the  Bishop,  without  calling  on  tie  accused  for  an  ex- 
plauaUoB,  and  without  any  notice  to  liim  whatever  of  what  was  proposed,  had  ''reason 
to  believe"  that  the  case  of  his  presbyter  should  be  investigated, — whether  such  infor- 
mation is  "  public  rumor,  as  contemplated  by  sec.  2,  canon  37,  of  the  General  Con- 
vention," is  not  to  be  determined  here.  The  Bishop  acted  in  the  atfirmative.  To  que.s- 
tion  his  course  is  not  intended;  for,  in  the  language  of  one  whose  oi'inion  is  always  re- 
vered himself  a  Bishop, — "  a  Bishoj)  I  consider,  is  the  triend  and  brother  of  his  clergy, 
and  always  acts  towards  them  as  innocent  until  they  are  proved  to  be  guilty." 

*  This  did  not  the  "  five  persons"  in  the  case  now  .submitt^.  They  sat  as  "  a  commit- 
tee to  get  up  charges."  They  did  not  what  an  impartial  Bishop  has  said  they  "  ought 
most  unquestionaoly  to  have  done — attbrd  the  accused  opportunity  '  to  make  explana- 
tions and  offer  testimony  to  e.xplain  or  rebut  the  charges.'"  "  How  else,"  asks  one, 
"  than  by  admitting  upon  their  enquiry  the  statement  and  evidence  of  the  party  con- 
cerning whom  the  enquiry  was  made,  could  they  be  said  to '  examine  the  case  V  Is  not 
the  answer  of  the  party  himself  as  much  a  part  of  his  own  ca.>;e  as  the  aflirniation  of  ru- 
mor concerning  hmi?"  Their  proceedings — against  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Canon, 
and  against  the  sen.se  in  which  it  was  adopted,  and  in  which  it  has  invariably  been  act- 
ed on  m  the  Dioceses  of  New  York,  from  wlmse  codes  it  was  extracted, — and  against  the 
rules  laid  down  by  our  Divine  .Master,  (.'^t.  JIatt.  xviii.  1.5 — 17,)  which  forbid  one-sided 
and  partial  proceedings  in  such  cases — were  fx  parte.  They  neither  required  nor  re- 
ceived testimony.  Rumor  had  satisfied  their  Bishop;  why  should  it  not  have  satisfied 
them?  Nor  weie  they  impartial ;  for  of  them  the '•  master  spirit,"  referred  to  in  the 
preceding  note,  '•  was  a  great  part,"  acting  among  them  as  informant,  ])rosecutor  and  pre- 
senter j  and  three  others  of  them  were,  to  say  tlie  least,  •■  not  witli'"  the  accused, — they, 
with  the  former,  being  at  the  time  complaiiiants  of  him: — and,  in  consequence,  their 
"  ways"  were  "  not  ecjual,'" — they  having  allowed  the  opponents  of  the  accused  the  lib- 
erty of  communicating  and  being  prc-ieut  with  them,  and  of  giviuf^  in  statements  at 
pleasure,  of  which  the  accused  was  debarred  ;  and  which  in  the  civil  cases  to  which  it 
nas  been  claimed  their  duties  were  analogous,  would  have  vitiated  their  entire  ])roceed- 
ings.  "  In  their  opinion,"  however, — an  opinion  forn\ed  under  such  circumstances, 
without  "  an  enquiry  as  to  the  ti-utli"  of  what  was  alleged,  without  '•  an  investigation," 
without  "an  examination  of  the  case." — there  was  •■  sutticient  ground  (or  presentment,"' 
and  they  did  "  present  accordingly."  Their  presentment  is,  therefore,  to  be  viewed 
simply  as  the  re-affirmation  of  rumor:  as  a  return  to  the  Bishop  in  solemn  form — for  it 
i8  really  very  solemn  and  imposing,  like  that  after  which  it  almost  bears  the  appearance 
of  having  been  fashion<-d— of  just  the  information  which  he  gave  them  at  the  outlet.  He 
had  committed  to  them  the  one-sided  .story,  which  had  given  him  prima  facie  ''  leason  to 
believe,"  &c. :  tliey  returned  to  him  in  the  Presentment  the  same  one-sided  story,  on 
the  same  authority  on  wliich  he  had  at  first  received  it  !  Thus  they  accused,  but.  thanks 
to  God  !  the  Court,  acciinliiig  to  truth,  found  their  accu.sations  uusustained  ;  that  the 
charges  were  false.    (Sn   Vinllrt.) 

How  wholesome  would  be  the  rule  relative  to  accusers  embodied  in  one  of  the  Canons 
of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  held  in  A.  D.  3f<l :  -They  must  not  advance  the 
charges  before  thev  have  agreed  in  writing  to  submit  to  an  ecjual  penalty,  if,  u^)ou  ex- 
amination of  the  matter,  thev  should  be  convicted  of  bringing  false  charges  against  the 
[Presbyter]  whom  they  accuse."— (  Canon  \l.) 

But  more  important  is  the  question.  How  "  far  distant  is  the  time  when  the  adminis- 
tration of  ecclesiastical  justice  shall  be  regulated  by  one  set  of  Canons,  under  the  au- 
thority of  the  General  Convention,  securing  to  the  dissatisfied  party,  in  every  instance, 
an  appeal  to  the  House  of  Bishops,"  or  to  a  Court  of  Bishops,  consisting  of  three  or 
five,  from  the  decision  of  each  Diocesan  tribunal .' 

What  has  occurred  in  Chicago,  in  the  last  three  vears,  in  the  way  of  Presentmentx, 
causes  one  heartily  to  concur  in  the  hope  expressed  by  a  Bishop  of  our  Church,  "  that 
the  time  will  come  when  any  man  or  men  who  will  attempt  a  public  accusation  before 
the  rules  laid  down  by  our  Divine  Ma.«ter  (St.  Matt,  xviii.  L5— 17)  have  been  coii>r''cd 
Kith,  will  l>e  considered  by  the  Church  as  heathen  and  publicans" 


■within  the  said  thirty  days,  the  Bishop  shall  select  five ;  and  the  presby- 
ters so  selected  shall  ibrin  a  board  for  the  trial  of  the  accused,  and  shall 
meet  at  such  time  and  place  as  the  Bishop  shall  direct,  and  shall  have 
power  to  adjourn  from  time  to  time,  and  from  place  to  place,  (but  always 
within  this  Diocese,)  as  they  shall  think  necessary. 

Sect.  3.  A  written  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  their  first  meet- 
ing  shall  be  served,  at  least  thirty  days  before  such  meeting,  on  the  ac- 
cused, and  also  on  one  of  the  persons  making  the  presentment. 

Sect.  4.  If  at  the  time  appointed  for  the  first  meeting  of  the  board  of 
presbyters,  the  whole  number  of  five  shall  not  attend,  then  those  who  do 
attend  may  adjourn  from  time  to  time ;  and  if,  after  one  adjournment  or 
more,  it  shall  appear  to  them  improbable  that  the  whole  number  will  at^ 
tend  within  a  reaasonable  time,  then  those  who  do  attend,  not  being  less 
than  three,  shall  constitute  the  board,  and  proceed  to  the  trial,  and  a  ma- 
jority of  them  shall  decide  all  questions. 

Sect.  5.  If  a  clergyman  presented  shall  confess  the  truth  of  the  facts 
alleged  in  the  presentment,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  proceed 
to  pass  sentence ;  and  if  he  shall  not  confess  them  before  the  appointment 
of  a  board  for  his  trial,  as  before  mentioned,  he  shall  be  considered  as  de- 
nying them. 

Sect.  6.  If  a  clergyman  presented,  after  havlug  had  due  notice,  shall 
not  appeal-  before  the  board  of  presbyters  appointed  for  his  trial,  the  board 
may  nevertheless  proceed  as  If  he  were  present,  unless  for  good  cause  they 
shall  see  fit  to  adjourn  till  another  day. 

Sect.  7.  When  the  board  proceed  to  the  trial,  they  shall  hear  such 
evidence  as  shall  be  producied,  which  evidence  shall  be  reduced  to  writing 
and  signed  by  the  witnesses  respectively ;  and  some  officer,  authorised  by 
law  to  administer  oaths,  may,  at  the  desire  of  either  party,  be  requested  to 
administer  an  oath  or  affirmation  to  the  witnesses  that  they  will  testify  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  concerning  the  facts 
charged  in  the  presentment.  If  on  or  during  the  ti'Ial,  the  accused  shall 
confess  the  truth  of  the  charges  stated  In  the  presentment,  the  board  may 
dispense  with  hearing  further  evidence,  and  may  proceed  at  once  to  state 
their  opinion  to  the  Bishop  as  to  the  sentence  that  ought  to  be  pronounced. 
In  regulating  the  admission,  and  in  determining  the  effect  of  evidence,  the 
board  shall  be  governed  by  the  practices  and  principles  of  courts  of  law 
and  equity  in  analogous  cases. 

Sect.  8.  Upon  the  application  of  either  party  to  the  Bishop,  and  it 
being  made  satisfactorily  to  appear  to  him  that  any  material  witness  can- 
not be  procured  upon  the  trial,  the  Bishop  may  appoint  a  commissary  to 
take  the  testimony  of  such  witness.  Such  commissary  may  be  either  a 
clergyman  or  a  layman,  and  the  party  so  ajiplylng  shall  give  to  the  other 
at  least  six  days'  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  the  testimony ; 
and  if  the  person  on  whom  the  notice  shall  be  served  shall  reside  more 
than  forty  miles  from  the  place  of  examination,  an  additional  day's  notice 
shall  be  given  for  every  additional  twenty  miles  of  the  said  distance,  and 
both  parties  may  attend  and  examine  the  witness,  and  the  questions  and 
answers  shall  be  reduced  to  writing  and  signed  by  the  witness,  and  shall 
be  certified  by  the  commissary,  and  enclosed  under  his  seal,  and  trans- 
mitted to  the  board,  and  shall  be  received  by  them  as  evidence.  A  wit- 
ness examined  before  such  commissaiy  may  be  sworn  or  affirmed  in  man- 
ner aforesaid. 

Sect.  9.  The  board  having  deliberately  considered  the  evidence, 
shall  declare  in  a  writing  signed  by  them,  or  a  majority  of  them,  their  de- 
cision on  the  charges  contained  In  the  presentment,   distinctly  stating 


6 

wbetlier  the  accused  13  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  6uoh  charges  rc^pectivelt, 
ami  also  stating  the  sentence  which  in  theiropinion  should  be  pronounced  ; 
and  a  copy  of  such  decision  shall  be  without  delay  conimunicatt^d  to  the 
accused ;  and  the  original  decision,  together  with  the  evidence,  shall  be 
delivered  to  the  Bishop,  who  shall  pronouncc'such  canonical  sentence  ax 
shall  appear  to  him  to  be  proper,  provided  the  same  shall  not  exceed  in 
severity  the  sentence  recommended  by  the  board ;  and  such  sentence 
shall  be  final.  Before  pronouncing  any  sentence,  the  Bishop  shall  sum- 
mon the  accused,  and  any  three  or  more  of  the  clergy,  to  meet  him  at 
such  time  as  may  in  his  opinion  be  most  convenient,  in  some  church  to  be 
designated  by  him,  which  shall  for  that  purpose  be  open  at  the  time  to  all 
persons  who  may  choose  to  attend,  and  the  sentence  shall  then  and  there 
be  publicly  pronounced  by  the  Bishop.  But  the  JJishop,  if  he  shall  be 
satisfied  that  justice  requires  it,  may  grant  a  new  trial  to  the  accused ;  in 
which  case  a  new  board  of  presbyters  shall  be  appointed,  the  proceedings 
before  whom  shall  be  conducted  as  before  mentioned. 

Sect.  10.  All  notices  and  papers  contemplated  in  this  Canon  may  bo 
served  by  a  summoncr  or  summoners,  to  be  appointed  for  the  purpose  by 
the  Bishop,  and  whose  certificate  of  such  service  shall  be  evidence  there- 
of. In  case  of  service  by  any  other  person,  the  fact  shall  be  proved  by 
the  affidavit  of  such  person.  A  written  notice  or  paper  delivered  to  a 
party,  or  left  at  his  place  of  residence,  shall  be  deemed  a  sufficient  service 
of  such  notice  or  paper.  And  in  case  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a 
minister,  against  whom  any  ecclesiastical  proceeding  has  been  instituted, 
has  departed  from  the  United  States,  or  that  the  place  of  his  sojourn  can- 
not be  conveniently  ascertained,  then  it  shall  be  suflicient  to  have  a  copy 
of  the  citation  published  three  times  in  some  newspaper  printed  at  the 
seat  of  government  of  the  state  in  which  he  last  resided,  and  also  three 
times  in  some  newspaper  printed  at  the  scat  of  government  of  the  state  in 
vrhich  he  is  cited  to  appear,  at  least  six  months  before  the  day  of  appear- 
ance. 

Sect.  11.  The  defendant  may  have  the  privilege  of  ajipearing  by 
counsel ;  in  the  case  of  the  exercise  of  which  privilege,  and  not  other- 
wise, those  who  present  shall  have  also  the  like  privilege. 

Sect.  12.  The  necessary  expenses  incurred  in  a  trial  under  this 
Canon  shall  be  reported  to  the  ensuing  Diocesan  Convention  ;  and  when 
audited  under  its  direction,  shall  be  paid  by  the  treasurer  of  the  Diocese. 

Sect.  13.  Canons  XIV.  and  XV.  of  1838  are  hereby  repealed. — 
Canon  I.  o/1815,  oflhe  Diocese  of  Illinois, — adopted.,  with  verg  slight  inodi- 
Jicalio.n,from  the  Codes  of  the  Dioceses  of  Netc  York: 


I.  PRESENTMENT. 


To  the  Right  REVERENim  Philander  Chase,  Bishop 
of  the  Diocese  of  IlUnois : 

.The  undersigned,  Ezra  B.  Kellogg,  Rector  of  St.  James' 
Church  in  Chicago,  Charles  J.  Todd,  Hector  of  the  Parishes  of 
Christ  Church,  JoUet,  and  St.  John's  Church  of  Lockport,  William 
Allanson,  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church  in  Batavia,  Sjiitii  J. 
Sherwood,  layman  of  Trinity  Churcli  in  Chicago,  and  Gurdon 
S.  Hubbard,  layman  of  St.  James'  Church  in  Chicago,  all  in  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois,  do  hereby  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  authority 
vested  in  us  by  the  appointment  of  the  Bishop,  made  in  conformity 
with  the  eanon  of  said  Diocese,  in  such  case  made  and  provided, 
respectfully  represent  that  the  Reverend  William  F.  Walker, 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church  in  Chicago,  in  said  Diocese\  of  Illinois, 
has  been  accused  of  gross  immorality  and  scandalous  conduct  in  the 
several  specifications  hereinafter  more  particularly  set  forth,  contra- 
ry to  the  Canons  of  the  Church  in  such  case  made  and  provided, 
and  to  the  ordination  vow  of  said  William  F.  Walker — 

Article  1st. — The  said  Board  presenting  as  aforesaid  do  here- 
by present  and  allege,  that  said  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker,  at  a  meeting 
of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  held  on  the  seventh  day  of  April, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six, 
he  then  being  Rector  of  said  Church,  did  pledge  his  word,  that  at 
the  annual  election  on  the  ensuing  Easter  for  officers  of  the  Church 
for  the  year  1846,  he  Avould  allow  no  person  to  vote  at  said  elec- 
tion that  the  Vestry  or  any  of  them  should  object  to,  but  that  at 
said  annual  election  the  said  Rev.  AV.  F.  Walker  acted  as  chairman 
and  judge  of  the  same,  and  did  wilfully,  wrongfully,  and  contrary  to 
his  said  pledge,  so  made  at  the  said  Vestry  meeting,  receive  the 
votes  of  mmibers  of  persons  not  entitled  to  vote,  contrary  to  objec- 
tions of  said  Vestry,  or  some  of  them,  openly  made  at  said  election, 
whereby  the  said  W.  F.  Walker  committed  wilful  and  malicious 
falsehood,  contraiy  to  his  duty  as  a  minister  and  his  consecration 
vows,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church — 

Article  2d. — The  said  Board  do  further  present  and  allege 
that  during  the  connection  of  said  W.  F.  Walker  with  Trinity 
Chiu'chj  he,  the  said  Walker,  was  accustomed  to  call  the  stated 


8 

meetings  of  the  Vestry  of  said  Church,  to  be  held  on  the  first  Tues- 
day of  each  and  every  month,  in  the  Vestry -room  of  said  Church — 
that  the  said  Walker  had  refused  to  call  the  regular  meeting  of  said 
Vestry  to  be  held  on  the  Tuesday  of  INIarch  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six,  and  that  in  conse- 
quence tliereof,  said  regular  meeting  of  the  Vestry  of  said  Trinity 
Clmrch  was  called  by  the  Vestry  in  accordance  to  the  By-Laws  of 
paid  Church,  in  the  office  of  Mr.  L  P.  Hatfield,  to  be  held  at  three 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day — tliat  pursuant  to  said  call,  after 
most  of  the  members  of  said  Vestry  had  assembled  at  Mr.  Hat- 
field's office  at  the  time  api)ointed,  about  ten  minutes  after  three 
o'clock  a  note  was  received  from  Mr.  Walker  addressed  to  the  Ves- 
try, stating  that  the  Vestry-room  of  the  Church  was  the  proper 
place  to  hold  the  meeting,  and  tliat  he  would  meet  them  there  to 
preside  at  three  o'clock — upon  receipt  of  said  note,  the  said  Vestry 
did  thereupon  proceed  to  said  Vesft-y-room,  when  and  Avhere  they 
found  the  same  locked  and  the  key  gone,  and  further  that  the  said 
Walker  was  not  present,  nor,  so  iar  as  they  could  learn,  had  he  been 
there,  nor  did  he  afterwards  or  at  that  time  appear  or  attend  the 
same ;  on  account  of  which  said  misrepresentation  the  said  Vestry 
•waiting  a  reasonable  time  for  the  arrival  of  said  W.  F.  Walker, 
came  to  order  in  the  vestibule  of  said  church,  did  adjourn — which 
said  conduct  the  said  Board  present  as  contrary  to  his  ordination 
vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church — 

Article  3d. — The  said  Board  do  further  present  and  allege 
that  on  a  certain  Sunday,  sometime  on,  or  about  the  last  of  Septem- 
ber in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty- 
five,  immediatel}'  after  service  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  the  Rev. 
W.  F.  Walker,  then  Rector  of  said  Trinity  Church,  proceeded  mto 
the  country  for  the  professed  purpose  of  holding  divine  service — 
that  on  said  Sunday  the  said  W.  F.  Walker  did  take  into  the  coun- 
try his  gun  and  hunting  dog — that  afterwards  when  said  Wm.  F. 
Walker  was  asked  if  he  did  take  his  dog  and  gun  into  the  country 
on  Sundays  as  aforesaid,  said  Walker  openly,  falsely,  and  distinctly 
denied  the  same — which  said  conduct  of  the  said  William  F.  Wal- 
ker the  said  Board  present  as  contrary  to  his  ordination  vow  in  that 
behalf,  and  to  the  great  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church — 

Article  4tb. — Tlie  said  Board  do  further  present  and  allege, 
that  some  time  in  the  month  of  July  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  on,  or  about  the  time  of  the 
visit  of  the  Bishop  of  said  Diocese  at  Chicago,  the  Reverend  Wil- 
liam F.  Walker,  then  being  Rector  of  said  Trinity  Church,  did 
state  to  certain  persons,  members  of  said  Church  that  he  had  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  the  Bishop  informing  him,  the  said  Walker,  of 
his,  the  said  Bishop's,  intended  visit  to  Chicago,  and  at  the  same 
time  requesting  one  of  said  persons  to  entertain,  at  said  person's 
house,  the  Bishop  when  he  should  come — that  after  said  Bishop 
had  made  his  said  Aasit  as  aforesaid,  the  said  Wm.  F.  Walker  did  in 
the  presence  of  various  persons,  members  of  said  Trinity  Church 
publicly,  openly,  falsely,  and  wrongfully  deny  that  he  had  ever  re- 
ceived any  notice  or  letter  from  the  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  informing 


9 

said  Wm.  F.  Walker  of  the  BL-^hop's  intended  visit  as  aforesaid^: — 
whicli  said  conduct  of  said  Wm.  F.  Walker,  the  said  lioard  do  pre- 
sent as  contrary  to  his  ordination  vo\v  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the 
Bcandal  and  injury  of  the  Church — 

'•1 

Article  6th. — And  the  said  Board  do  further  present  and  al- 
lege that  on  or  al)out  the  first  day  of  July  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-four  the  Bishop  of  said  Dio- 
cese of  Illinois  was  on  a  visit  to  Chicago,  being  then  on  liis  way  to 
the  East — that  on  or  about  said  first  day  of  July  the  Bishop  left 
Chicago  on  said  journey,  and  that  soon  after  the  Bishop  left  as 
aforesaid,  the  said  Rev.  Wm.  F.  Walker  did  pubhcly,  openly,  and 
knowingly  state  to  various  persons,  membej-s  of  Trinity  Church 
aforesaid,  and  others,  that  the  said  Bishop  did  i\'hilst  on  the  boat 
on  the  eve  of  its  departure,  cordially  and  affcctingly  embrace  him, 
the  said  Wm.  F.  Walker,  then  being  present,  and  did  then  and 
there  state  to  him,  the  said  Walker,  that  the  said  Bishop  was  con- 
vinced that  the  charges  then  recently  made  against  him,  the  said 
Walker,  by  the  members  of  St.  James'  Church  in  Chicago,  were 
made  out  of  a  spirit  of  persecution — that  he,  said  Bishop,  had  suf- 
fered such  trials,  and  that  he,  said  Bishop,  Avould  write  him,  said 
Walker,  a  letter  when  he  arrived  at  Detroit  that  Avould  be  to  his, 
said  Walker's,  heart's  content ;  that  said  Wm.  F.  Walker,  further 
publicly,  knowingly  and  falsely  stated  to  various  persons  members 
of  his  Church  as  aforesaid,  that  said  Court  of  Inquuy,  above  men- 
tioned, at  St.  James'  Church  had  failed  to  find  any  charges  against 
him,  the  said  Wallvcr  ;  and  further,  that  said  Walker  did  pubhcly, 
openly  and  knowingly  state  that  said  Bishop  did  not  write  to  him, 
said  Walker,  any  such  letter  as  he,  said  Bishop,  had  promised  to 
write — all  of  which  declarations  of  said  Walker  the  Board  do  present 
as  fixlse,  untrue  and  malicious — which  said  conduct  of  the  said  Wm. 
F.  Walker  the  said  Board  do  present  as  contrary  to  his  ordination 
vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church 
aforesaid —  .- 

<'i 

Article  Gth. — The  said  Board  presenting  do  further  present 
and  allege  that  on  or  about 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty- 
that  said  WiUiam  F.  Walker  then  being  Rector  of  said  Trinity 
Church,  did  in  company  with  William  Stuart  and  James  Glass,  go 
into  the  country  for  the  pui*i)osc  of  hunting  ;  that  said  Walker  took 
with  him  at  the  time  of  said  excursion,  a  bottle  of  wine,  that  said 
Walker  did  at  the  time  drink  of  said  wine,  and  offered  the  same  to 
the  said  Stuart  and  the  said  Glass,  and  at  the  same  time  did  advise 
the  said  Glass,  though  being  a  young  man  and  a  member  of  the 
Temperance  Society,  the  said  Walker  well  knowing  the  same,  to 
drink  said  wine,  saying  that  it  c^uld  be  no  violation  of  his  pledge 
as  no  water  was  at  hand — on  account  of  which,  the  said  Glass  ■ 
taking  the  advice  of  said  Walker,  did  drink  of  said  wine  — wliich 
said  advice  the  said  Board  do  present  as  being  unjust,  improper  . 
and  immoral — which  said  conduct  was  contrary  to  the  ordi::ation 
vow  of  the  said  Walker,  and  to  the  scandal  and  iniury  of  the 
Church^ 

2  . 


10 

Article  7th. — The  said  Board  presenting,  do  further  present 
and  allege  that  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  January  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six,  that 
the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker,  then  heing  Rector  of  Trinity  Church 
aforesaid,  was  called  upon  hy  Isaac  P.  Ilathold  Treasurer  of 
Trinity  Church  aforesaid,  for  an  account  of  the  ofl'erings  received 
by  him  on  a  Sunday  morning  previous,  to  wit,  on  the  eleventh  day 
of  January  A.  D.  1846,  which  said  account  he  refused  in  anger  to 
give,  saying  that  the  money  was  his  own  and  that  he  would  do 
with  it  as  he  saw  fit,  and  that  he,  said  Hatfield,  must  not  say. 
*'  must"  to  him,  said  Walker,  for  any  one  who  says  "  must"  to  me 
insults  me,  and  any  one  who  insults  me  in  my  own  house,  may 
walk  out  of  it ;  on  account  of  which  language  of  said  Walker,  said 
Hatfield  left  the  house  much  grieved — which  conduct  the  said 
Board  do  present  as  contrary  to  his  ordination  vow  in  that  behalf, 
and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church  aforesaid —  '■  \ 

Article  8th. — The  said  Board  presenting  do  further  present, 
that  on  or  about  Epiphany   Sunday  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  the  said  William  F.  AYalker  t 
then  being  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  did  on  said  Sunday,  being-') 
Communion  Sunday,  preach  a  sermon  unsuitable  to  the  occasion, 
not  having  in  view  the  celebration  of  tlie  Communion  aforesaid,  but 
seemingly  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to  task  the  ladies  of  the  Sew- 
ing Society,  as  was  by  them  supposed,  for  not  having  appropriated 
the  monies  belonging  to  said  Society  as  he,  said  Wm.  F.  Walker,  1 
had  desired — -inconsequence  of  which  said  sermon   several  mera*i  I 
bers  of  said  Trinity  Church  did  absent  themselves  from  the  Commu- 
nion, feeling  scandalized  by  said  sermon,  and  which  said  sermon 
was  the  cause  of  offence  to  many  persons,  members  of  said  Church — 
that  said  William  F.  Walker  has  not  made  any  explanation  or  re-  - 
traction  of  said  sermon,  nor  has  made  any  inquiries  into  the  cause! 
of  said  members  absenting  themselves  from  the  Communion  since 
said  sermon — whicli  said  conduct  was  contrary  to  liis  ordination 
vow,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church — 

Article  9th. — The  said  Board  presenting  do  further  present' 
that  on  or  about  the  month  of  July  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five  the  said  Wm.  F.  Walker 
then  being  Rector  of  Trinif}^  Church  did  publicly  avow,  declare  • 
and  state  that  he  said  Walker  did  see  the  Bishop  v.hen,  and  at  the 
time  of  his  arrival  in  Chicago,  and  added  that  he.  believed  he  would 
go  into  the  country  and  that  said  AValker  did  go  into  thf>  country 
at  that  time ;  said  Wm.  F.  Walker  did  not  call  on  the  Bishop  du- ' 
ring  his  said  visit,  and  did  not  invite  the  Bishop  to  consecrate 
Trinity  Church,  or  confirm  those  whom  he  reported  of  his  Parish 
at  the  Convention  in  Springfield  of  the  year  A.  D.  1845  as  being 
ready  for  confirmation—which  said  conduct  the  said  Board  do  pre- 
sent as  contrary  to  his  ordination  vow,  and  to  the  scandal  and  in- 
jury of  the  Church — 

Article  10th. — And  the  said  Board  presenting  do  further  pre-' 
sent  and  allege  that  on  or  about  the  month  of  May  or  September 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five, 


11 

the  said  Williiuii  F.  Walker  then  being  Rector  of  Trinity  Cimrch 
did  in  tiie  store  of  Jacob  ilu^sell  iu  baid  city  of  Cbiciigo  have 
mixed  for  him  some  brandy  and  sugar,  giving  as  an  excuse,  sick- 
ness, tliougli  said  "Walker  appearijd  well  tuid  in  high  spirits — that 
at  same  time  said  William  V.  Vv^alker  being  told  that  a  certain  man, 
his  name  being  mentioned,  formerly  a  friend  of  Mr,  Walker  but 
then  au  enemy,  was  carried  home  drunk  a  few  evenings  previous  to 
this  time  from  the  Lake  House  a  hotel  iu  said  city  of  Chicago,  did 
instantly  reply  that  he  was  glad  of  it,  indulging  in  a  loud  and  hearty 
laugh  at  the  same  time — that  the  said  Walker  did  then  immediately 
change  his  manner  and  add  that  he  meant  he  was  glad  that  he  had 
such  veiy  good  friends  to  carry  him  home — all  of  which  said  con- 
duct the  said  Board  do  present  as  contrary  to  the  ordination  vow 
of  said  Wm.  F.  Walker  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the 
Church— 

i>  * 

■"■  Article  11th. — And  the  said  Boai-d  presenting  do  further  pre- 
sent that  on  or  about  the  month  of  August  or  September  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  Ibrty-five,  the 
said  Wm.  F.  Walker  then  being  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  did  in 
a  certain  transaction  of  business  with  one  Silas  B.  Cobb  in  the 
said  city  of  Chicago,  in  an  angry  and  passionate  manner  intimate 
to  said  Cobb  that  he,  said  Cobb  lied,  but  that  said  Walker  did  af- 
terwards retract  his  words,  stating  that  he,  said  Walker  was  prob- 
ably mistaken,  and  wished  the  matter  forgotten — which  said  con- 
duct said  Board  do  present  as  contrary  to  the  ordination  vow  of 
said  Walker,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church. 

All  of  which  we  respectfully  present. 

(Signed.) 

EZKA  B.  KELLOOa, 

Ufccor  of  St.  James'  Churcli  iu  Chicago, 

CHARLES  J.  TODD, 

Eactor  of  the  Parishes  of  Christ  Church,  Joliet,  und  St.  John's  Churcli  of  Lockport, 

WILLIA^M  ALLANSON, 

Kector  oi  St.  FaiiTs  Church,  Batavla, 

SMITH  J.  SHERWOOD, 

Layman  of  Trinity  Church,  Chicago, 

GURDON  S.  HUBBARD, 

-f*' ■■  Layman  of  .St.  James'  Church,  Chicago. 

"This  paper"— the  forc^'oiuj,'  Presentment— printed  after  the  copy  to  a  point— to- 
gettier  with  a  •' uotico  of  taking  te:?taniouy''— the  depositions  of  certain  uidividuals— 
^  toucliing  the  charges  ai;d  specitications  agair.st  the  accused,  was  "  served"  on  him 
''May  14th,  184*;,"  by  a  •■  Cornniissary"  duly  appointed.  Before  that  -'Commis.-ary" 
about  three  weeic's  were  sr.eiir.  at  a  cosr  of  time  and  trial  to  the  accused,  who  had  the 
'■  li'jorty  to  be  present  and  cro.ss-exaniine  the  witnesses,"  suclt  as  may  be  neither  named 
nor  estimated.  In  the  mean  while.  Galena  was  designated  by  the  Bishop  as  the  place, 
and  the  latter  pai-t  of  June— the  month  following- as  the  time,  of  trial.  The  accused, 
anxious  for  the  is.sue,  a\  itli  his  Counsel  and  a  witness,  made  the  jouiney  of  crossing  the 
State  by  stage,  and  was  present  punctually  at  the  place  appointed.  It  was,  however,  iu 
vaiii:  110  Canonical  Court  was  organized,  though  imploringly  sought;  of  coursCj  no 
trial  was  had.  It  was  urged  by  the  accusi'd,  that  he  had  macTe  every  preparation  for  a 
trial  at  that  time;  that  he  had  been  atgieat  expense  in  procuring  testimony  and  ob- 
taining Counsel  for  the  pui-pose  ;  that  to  iiieet  tiiif?  expense  he  had  been  forced  well 
nigh  to  take  the  necessary  bread  from  his  family  ;  that  he  could  not  endure  the  cost  of 
a  new  preparation  for  auotlier  time  and  place;  that  all  things  were  then  leady  ;  that 
the  peace  of  himself  and  family,  which  had  been  long  distui  bed  by  a  threatened  prose- 
cution on  the  part  of  the  Bi.-hop,  recjuired  ihur  a  hearing  should  then  be  granted  him 
and  the  end  be  met ;  and  that  his  reputation,  •■  already  very  much  injured,"  as  the  Bish- 
op had  said,  and  likely  to  suffer  more  and  more  by  every  day's  delay,  and  ths  interests 
oihii  pariih,  latl  though  by  no  mcan=  le.^st  to  be  coiioideied,  demanded  it.    gtill  th8 


12 

trial  was  ilelerrcd  I'or  two  mon11>s  then  fo  como,  and  the  place  clianged  to  Chicago; 
circuiiistiinccff  :i3  clearly  gijjnilicant  ol"  tV;eliiif;;s  toward  the  acciis^d  on  the  part  of  Iiis 
Chief  l'uslor,as  had  been  his!  course  I'or  the  two  yearti  prcccdin;;,  and  as  they  were  known 
to  be  harassing  to  the  accused  and  distressing  to  his  friends.  This  will  be  understood 
end  appreciated,  when  facts  are  stated  to  which  the  concluding  paragraph  but  one  of 
the  note  on  the  following  page  refers. 

The  names  of  the  members  of  the  "  Koard  of  Trial"  present  are  given  in  the  Answer. 
The  accused  proposed  that  neither  himself  nor  the  presenters  should  aii])ear  by  Counsel ; 
,but  in  this  he  was  overruled  as  regards  the  presenters,  lie,  in  consei|ueuce,  felt  it  to  bo 
due  to  himself  to  avail  himself  of  the  services  of  a  portion  of  those  members  of  the  Chi- 
cago bar  who,  having  sympathised  with  him  in  his  trials,  and,  in  a  sj)irit  of  magnanim- 
ity and  charity  which  may  not  be  uttered,  had  considered  him  in  his  low  pecuniai-y 
estate,  and  attached  themselves  to  his  cause,  because  they  rcgardsd  it  as  that  of  one  un- 
reasonably oppressed  and  persecuted 

It  was  so  freely  and  fre<(ucntly  denied  by  opjionents.  during  and  subsequent  to  the 
trial,  in  the  face  of  declarations  made  by  the  Counsel  themselves,  that  their  servicea 
were  really  gratuitous,  as  to  cause  the  accused  to  deem  it  a  duty  to  jjublish  the  follow- 
ing, which  he  did  in  the  Chicago  Daily  Journal.  It  is  inserted  here  for  a  two-fold  pur- 
pose, to  wit:  l.st,  to  witness  to  the  fact  referred  to ;  2d,  to  furnish  the  oi)inion  of  able 
Jurists,  to  whom  the  case  was  open,  and  who  were  thoroughly  conversant  with  it,  re- 
epecting  it. — 

Cmc.iGO,  Sept.  14, 1846. 
Messrs. .Wilson  ^'  Geer : 

Dear  Sirs.— Now  that  my  case  hashecn  terminated  by  the  finding  of  the  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Court,  which  you  have  announced,  it  seems  to  be  due  that  the  following  correspon- 
dence should  be  given  to  the  public.  Declarations,  touching  the  matters  wliich  it  cov- 
ers, having  been  conlidently  made  in  certain  quarters,  justice  requires  that  the  truth 
should  be  given  as  a  rebuke  to  their  presumi)tion. 

"When  will  the  unmeiciful  come  to  comjireliend  the  spirit  of  mercy?  the  unforgiving 
the  temper  of  forgiveness .'  the  suspicious  and  rancorous  the  habit  ot' trust  and  charity  ? 
That  the  good  in  this  case  may  not  be  evil  sj/oken  of  unknowingly,  is  the  object  of 
■  this  publication.  Yours  faithfully, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 


Chicago,  1st  September,  1845. 
Rev.W.  F.  Walker: 

Dear  Sir,— From  the  time  that  we  became  professionally  interested  in  the  charges 
pending  before  the  Ecclesiastical  Court  now  in  sessicm  here,  we  were  of  opinion  that 
they  originated  in  iierseeution.  The  evidence  already  adduced  has  satisfied  us  of  the 
correctness  of  that  opinion.  Vi'e,  therefore,  from  a  .-ouse  of  the  duty  we  owe  to  youi'self, 
and  from  respect  to  your  station  as  a  Christian  minister,  beg  to  say,  that  our  services, 
past  and  to  come,  are  freely  tendered  to  you. 
Trusting  that  you  will  long  remain  in  our  city. 

We  remain  your  obedient  servants, 

J.  A.  McDOUGAL, 
1'.  l?ALLIN(iAJJ>, 
JK^.SE  B    TllUiMAS, 
J.  ItUlTKKKIELD, 
J.  J.  BKOWM. 


To  the  Hon.  Messrs.  J.  A.  McDovgal,  Jesse  B.  Thomas,  and  J.  Buturjidd;  and  Messrs.  P. 
Bntliii^nU,  and  J.  J.  Bnnrii.  Es(/rs 

Very  Dear  Sirs, — Y our  polite  iind  more  than  kind  note  of  to-day  prompts  an  imme- 
diate, cordial,  and  thanktul  acknowledgment.  To  be  so  ■'  remembered'  ju  "  mercy,  in 
the  midst  of  seeming  "judgment."  inspires  emotions  for  which  1  may  not  attempt  to 
find  expression.  IMay  the  Almighty  Lord  reward  your  generous  interest  with  Ilis 
blessing,  and  grant  tjiat  "  inasmuch  as  you  have  shown  it  to  one  of  the  least  of  those" 
whom  he  is  pleased  to  own  as  •■  lirelhren,"  it  may  be  accounted  as  '•  done  unto  llim- 
self!'' 

The  opinion  entertained  by  you  from  the  time  that  you  became  jirofesfionally  con- 
cerned in  the  charges  against  me,  of  which  your  note  informs  me,  viz.  "  that  they  orig- 
inated in  ])ersecution" — of  the  correct  no.-is  of  which,  you  say,  the  evidence  already  ad- 
duced, which  has  been  that  of  the  presenters  only,  aiid  is  tliat  which  is  relied  upon  by 
them  to  maintain  their  cause,  has  satisfied  you— is  very  comforting  to  be  assured  of, 
and  will  alleviate  in  a  quarter  for  which  concern  is  deeper  on  my  part  than  for  myself. 
From  that  (piarter,  I  can  safely  say,  will  fervent  prayer  ascend  for  you,  and  holiest 
thanksgivings  be  i)Oured  out  for  tiie  tender  consideration  which  your  note  bespeaks. 
Together,  we  feel  that  '•  we  have  no  might  against  tliis  great  company  that  cometh 
against  us,  to  cast  us  out  of  God's  possession,  which  he  hath  given  us  to  inherit ;  neither 
know  we  what  to  do;  but  our  eyes  are  uponllim;"  and  to  you,  under  llim,  is  our 
cause  entrusted,  confidently  and  hopefully. 

Should  we  be  brought  safely  1  hrough  this  intensely  "healed  furnace,"  we  shall  doubt- 
less remain,  should  it  so  please,  while  God  shall  spare  us,  or  till  duty  shall  elsewhere 
call,  still  in  this  city,  pursuing,  though  faint,  the  line  of  our  duty  ;  and  seek  to  build 
agam,  with  a  faitli  and  energy  quickened  by  chastisement,  the  places  that  by  this  storm 
shall  have  become  wasted  orbeiiten  down. 

To  know  that,  while  we  may  rcninin,  that  we  sliall  share  in  your  confidence  and  re- 
.eards,  will,  gentlemen,  be  very  inspiriting  under  trial,  very  encouraging  in  the  path  of 
duty,  and  give  a  fulness  of  hope  in  all  the  changes  and  chances  that  may  befall  us. 

In  duty,  in  gratitude,  and  in  love, 

I  am,  gentlemen,  ever  yours, 

W.  F.  WALKEK. 
i'  .'t'llicago,  Sept.  1;  IS  16. 


ANSWER.* 


To  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Dresser,  Gitldinge,  Do  Pui,  and  Darrow, 
now  sitting  as  a  Board  for  the  trial  of  the  undersigned,  on  two 
several  Presentments — one  of  18445  the  other  of  1846 — in 
Trinity  Church,  in  this  city : 

Dear  Bretiirkx — 

The  undersigned,  respondent  in  the  case  now  before  you,  begs 
leave  to  submit  the  following,  loucliing  the  several  charges  and 
specifications  in  the  Presentments  above  noted,  as  his  answer  to 
the  same. 

"  Not  guilty  in  the  form  and  manner  charged,"  was  the  general 
plea  of  the  respondent  at  the  opening  of  this  case.  lie  now  pro- 
poses to  make  a  particular  ansAver  to  each  specific  allegation  against 
him,  beginning  with  the  Presentment  of  1846. 

I.  With  respect  to  article  I.,  in  that  Presentment,  the  respond- 
ent avers,  that  at  the  "  meeting  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church" 
therein  referred  to,  "  he  did"  not  "  pledge  his  word  that  at  the  an- 
nual election  on  the  ensuing  Easter  for  officers  of  the  Church  for 

*  It  was  the  right  of  the  accused  to  offer  this  ans-wer  in  evidence.  Thi.s,  however,  was 
not  done ;  it  was  simjily  read  as  tlie  explanation  of  the  cliarge.s  embodied  in  tlie  Pre- 
sentment, at  the  conclusion  of  the  ca.se,  and  this  with  tlie  explicit  understanding  that 
the  Counsel  for  the  presenters  might  reply  to  it  should  they  see  lit.  No  portion  of  it 
having  been  questioned  by  them,  the  wliole  was  considered  as  admitted.  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  tinding  of  the  Court  fully  sustains  it. 

It  may  be  here  stated  that,  at  the  opcnin;;'of  the  case,  on  the  trial,  exception  was  taken 
to  the  Presentment,  in  the  form  of  a  motion  to  quash  it,  on  the  ground  that  the  whole 
of  the  proceedings  connected  with  the  finding  of  it,  were  a  dcpaiFture  from  the  Divine 
Law,  from  the  laws  of  the  Church,  and  from  those  wise  and  .just  regulations  that  govern 
in  all  analagous  cases  in  this  country  and  elsewhere,  wherever  individual  rights  are 
regarded, — wherever  there  is  a  ju,st  sense  of  the  responsibility  of  proceedings  involving 
interests  corresponding  with  those  which  were  depending  in  this  case, — and  in  these 
several  particulars,  to  wit: 

1st,  In  that  it  ^va»  er  parte. — the  accused  not  having  been  allowed  to  meet  the  pre- 
senters and  confront  his  accusers,  either  to  rebut  or  explain  what  was  alleged  ; 

2d,  In  that  it  was  not  founded  ou  evidence,  but  on  the  simple  unsupported  statements 
of  hostile  parties ; 

3d,  In  that  the  presenters  were  not  impartial,  but  the  reverse,  and  were  therefore  dig- 
qualified  ; 

4th,  In  that  parties  and  witnesses  opposed  to  the  accused  were  permitted  freely  to 
communicate  with  the  presenters,  and  to  be  present  during  their  session,  at  pleasure,  and 
that  while  one  or  another  was  retailing  his  or  her  story. 

These  points  having  been  raised,  and  sustained  by  what  was  deemed  competent  au- 
thority, the  accused  withdrew  his  motion,  and  asked  to  be  tried  both  on  the  Present- 
ment of  1846,  and  on  that  of  1844,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  former  and  in  the 
Answer,  which  had  been  dead  more  than  a  year ,  but  which,  by  ardent  cherishing,  had 
been  made  to  possess  a  seeming  life,  till  IMoiiday,  Aug.  24, — the  Festival  of  St.  Barthol- 
ontew  I — when  its  most  staunch  maintainer,  the  Bishop,  was  forced  to  enter  a  nolle 
prosequi,  as  he  termed  it,  in  that  case.  That  paper  will  appear  in  its  order  in  the  Ap- 
pendix, which  will  embrace  all  the  papers  referred  to  in  the  Answer  as  on  the  files  of 
the  Court. 

The  names  that  are  introduced  in  this  Answer,  and  in  the  papers  connccled  with  it, 
Jiad  become  familiar  to  the  Court. 


14 

the  year  IS-iG,  he  would  allow  no  person  to  vote  at  said  election 
that  the  Vestry  or  any  ot"  them  should  object  to  ;"  and  that  he 
could  not  have  so  pledged  himself,  because  he  never  supposed  that 
it  was  Avilhin  his  power  to  say  who  should  or  who  shfjuld  not  vote  ;  but 
that  what  he  said  was  in  substance,  and  nearly  in  words  as  tbllows  : 
"  The  Vestry  is  the  creature  of  the  congregation,  and  for  executive 
purposes  only  ;  and  therefore  may  not  control  the  superior  body,  or 
go  bej'ond  either  the  source  or  limit  of  its  power  ; — the  Canons  of 
the  Diocese  provide  that  ''  the  parishioners  of  each  church  shall 
elect  a  Vestry ;"  by  the  statutes  of  Illinois  the  members  of  any 
religious  society  or  congregation  may  vote  ibr  Trustees  in  the  so- 
ciety or  congregation  to  wliieh  they  respectively  belong  ; — who  are 
parishioners  according  to  the  Canon,  or  members  of  the  society  or 
congregation,  according  to  the  Statute,  must  be  settled  by  each  con- 
gregation for  itself,  as  is  done  in  legislative  bodies  in  determining 
the  right  of  members,  when  contested,  to  seats.  Such  is  the  way 
in  which  other  religious  bodies  conduct  their  elections,  for  all  are 
organised  under  one  and  the  same  genei'al  law.  I  do  not  believe 
that  the  members  of  this  congregation  are  worse  than  others, — in- 
deed, such  is  my  conlidence  in  the  members  of  Tiinity  congrega- 
tion, that  I  would  not  hesitate  to  pledge  myself  that  no  one  will  of- 
fer to  vote  who  shall  not  be  considered  a  legal  votei"."  And,  in  re^ 
ply  to  the  question  addressed  to  him  by  some  member  of  the  Ves- 
try, "  Who  would  you  consider  a  ])arishioner,  or  member  of  the 
the  congregation  ?"  the  respondent  added,  "■  One  who  attends  the 
church  and  hails  from  it  as  his  place  of  worship  ; — such  is  the 
way  the  matter  is  determined  in  IS'ew  York,  and  I  believe  prop- 
erly." 

The  respondent  further  a\  ers,  "  that  at  said  annual  election"  he 
did  not  act  "  as  judge  of  the  same,"  or  "  receive  the  votes  of  num- 
bers of  persons  not  entitled  to  vote,"  nor  of  any  person  or  persons 
whatever.  By  resolution  of  the  congregation  he  was  called  to  the 
chair ;  on  the  taking  of  which,  after  the  election  of  a  Secretary,  Mr. 
C.  Holland,  he  invited  Dr.  Maxwell  and  Wm,  Stuart,  Esq.,  to  sit 
"with  him  as  Assessors,  and  act  as  Tellers ; — the  former  gentleman 
,not  being  present,  Mr.  Jacob  Russell  was  invited  to  his  place.  The 
election  then  proceeded  according  to  rules  adopted  by  the  congre- 
gation at  the  time,  and  without  the  agency  or  iitterference  of  the 
respondent,  except  in  two  instances  ; — one,  that  of  Thomas  Brown, 
who,  though  a  parishioner  Avho  had  contributed  towards  the  build- 
ing of  the  church  edifice  and  the  support  of  the  Rector,  had  not  so 
attended  on  the  services  of  the  church  as  to  i)ut  his  vote  beyond 
question  ;  and,  as  it  Avas  understood  that  he  would  vote  according 
to  the  respondent's  interest,  he  thought  proper  to  say  to  him  that 
he  had  better  not  vote,  &c.,  which  at  first  rei)elled  him,  but  he  af- 
terwards claimed  his  right,  and,  under  the  rules  prevailing,  voted. 
The  other  Avas  that  of  Charles  Torode,  a  communicant  of  the 
church  at  a  station  Avhere  the  respondent  has  peiibrmed  some  mis- 
sionary duty,  seventeen  miles  in  the  countiy,  but  not  a  member  of 
Trinity  parish  or  congregation ;  he  had  been  in  the  church  but 
once,  it  is  believed,  since  Christmas,  1844,  and  claimed  no  rights 
in  it.  His  name  is  on  the  Records  of  the  respondent,  it  is  true ;  but 
so  are  the  names  of  all  to  whom  he  has  ministered  at  ditierent  sta- 
tions 5  and  this  because  at  those  station;  no  parishes  had  been  or- 


15 

ganized,  and  consequently  there  wa,s  no  Register  at  either  of  tliem  ; 
therefore  Canon  viii.  could  be  fulfilled  onlj^  by  making  the  required 
entries  in  the  Register  of  Trinity  Church.  Mr.  Torode  was  under 
the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  respondent,  tliougli  not  his  parisli- 
ioner.  When  Mr.  Torode  walkeil  up  the  aisle,  the  resjjondt^nt  con- 
jectured that  he  might  be  coming  forward  to  vote,  under  a  misap- 
prehension of  his  rights;  and  not  knowing,  then,  or  even  now,' 
whether  it  was  his  intention,  if  lie  voted  at  all,  to  vote  according 
to  or  opposed  to  the  respondent's  interest,  the  respondent  admon- 
ished him  that  he  was  not  of  the  parish,  and  could  not  rightfully- 
claim  to  vote.* 

Sucli  is  the  answer  of  the  respondent  to  Article  T.  i 

IT.  With  respect  to  Article  IT.,  the  respondent  allows,  that  du-' 
ring  his  "  connection  with  Trinity  Church  he  was  accustomed  to 
call  the  stated  meetings  of  the  Vestry  of  said  Church  to  be  held  on 
the  first  Tuesday  of  each  and  every  month  in  the  Vestry-room  of' 
said  Church  ;" — but  that  he  "  had  refused  to  call  the  regular  meet- 
ing of  said  Vestry  on  the  Tuesday  in  March"  last,  he  denies ;  also ! 
that  any  *'  meeting  was  called  by  the  Vestry  in  accordance  to  the 
By-Laws  of  said  Church." 

*The  ofBeial  record  of  the  proceedings  at  the  election  referred  to,  certified  and 
sworn  to  by  the  Clerk,  is  as  follows : 

Easter  Monday,  April  13, 1846. 
After  morning  prayer  by  the  Rector,  the  male  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trin- 
ity Church  organized  a  meeting  for  the  purjioso  of  liokling  tlie  annunl  election  of 
Trustees  of  said  Chiircli,  and  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen,  for  the  current  year, ' 
pursuant  to  prievous  determination. 

On  motion,  the  Rector  was  called  to  the  Chair,  who,  on  taking  his  seat,  called  tlie 
meeting  to  order,  and  invited  >Iessrs.  Jacob  Russell  and  William  Stuart  to  sit  with  him 
as  assessor.?.  Jlessrs.  Russell  and  Stuurt  complied,  and  took  their  seats  accordingly,  one 
on  either  side  of  the  Rector. 

On  motion.  C.  Holland  was  elected  Clerk  of  the  meeting.  S.  J.  Sherwood  then  mov- 
ed tlie  following  lesolution,  which  was  seconded. 

Resnlvd,  That  the  election  shall  bo  conducted  as  follows  :  That  the  votes  shall  be  re- 
ceived in  two  liats  ;  in  one  shall  be  put  all  the  unchallenged  votes;  in  the  other,  the 
votes  that  shall  be  cliallenged  ;  and  six  persons  shall  be  choseuj  three  from  each  party, 
who  shall  be  judges  of  the  election,  and  decide  on  the  admission  of  the  challenged 
votes. 

Whereupon  C.  H.  Larrabee,  Esq.,  moved  as  an  amendment,  to  be  inserted  in  the 
above,  immediately  after  the  word  Resolved,  that  the  election  shall  proceed  as  the  meet- 
ing is  at  present  organized  ;  and  that  the  following  questions  shall  be  addressed  to 
each  voter  wlio  may  be  challenged,  an  aflimative  answer  to  which  shall  be  necessary  to 
entitle  tlie  iiulividual  to  vote. 
QcESTiox  1st.    Are  yon  twenty-one  years  of  age? 

Question' 2d.    Do  you  ijrotess  to  belong  to  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church?  ' 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Larrabee  wa.s  seconded  and  carried.  The  election  then  pro- 
ceeded, Jacob  Russell  receiving  the  votes,  Wm.  Stuart  propounding  to  those  whose 
votes  were  challenged  the  above  questions.  All  who  were  present  having  had  an  op-  • 
portunity  to  vote,  the  polls  were,  on  motion,  closed.  The  a.ssessors,  Jacob  Russell  and 
\Vm.  Stuart,  counted  the  votes  cast,  and  announced  the  result  of  the  election  to  be  as' 
follows  :  Whole  number  of  votes,cast,  sixty -live  ;  forty-five*  of  wliich  were  for  the  foJ-  ■ 
lowing : 

Geore  Davis.  |  AVird^nq 

C.  R.  Vander  Cook,       j   ^^  araens, 
Daniel  Elstou,         1 
Isaac  Dike, 

Herman  Warner,  i  Trustees. 

Horatio  O.  Stone,   (•  Vestrymen,  ) 

E.  J.  Hamihon,       |  I     ' 

Carlton  Holland,    I  I 

Obadiah  Jackson,   J  j 

Who  were  accordingly  declared  duly  elected.    On  motion  the  meeting  adjourned. 

(Signed,)        CARLTON  HOLLAND,  Clerk. 
Records  of  Trinity  Church. 

♦This  vote  would  have  been  53,  but  for  the  necessary  absence  of  eight  persons  like 
minded. 

The  Court  seem  to  have  thought  that  the  respondent  should  not  have  been  present  at 
the  Easter  election ;  hence  their  hnding,  if  censurable  at  all,  that  he  was  "  censurable 
only  for  having  any  thing  to  do  with  all  election  under  such  circumstances."  The  re- 
spondent would  respectfully  submit  that  there  is  room  for  an  honest  difference  of  opin- 
ion on  this  point. 


16 

The  By-Laws  of  the  Vestry  of  Truilty  Churcli  provide  that 
"  stated  meetinijs  of  the  IJonrd  shall  be  held  on  tlie  first  Tuesday 
in  each  month ;"  but  of  the  time  and  place  at  which  such  meetings 
shall  be  lield  they  make  no  mention.*  After  the  completion  of 
Trinity  Churcli,  the  Vestry-room  of  said  church  became  the  "  ac- 
customed" place  of  holding  Vestry  meetings  ;  and  the  time  was  in- 
variably fixed  by  the  respondent,  unless  defined  by  an  adjourn- 
ment, of  which  the  members  of  the  Board  were  notified  by  the 
Clerk,  under  the  direction  of  the  respondent,  by  means  of  certain 
printed  notices  furnished  him  for  tlie  purpose.  Tlnose  notices 
were  never  issued  by  order  of  the  AVardens  and  Vestry,  either  or 
both,  either  collectively  or  individually ;  [nor,  "  in  accordance  to 
the  By-Laws,"  could  a  "  meeting"  be  "  called  by  the  Vestry,"  but 
in  the  absence  of  the  Rector.]  From  September  to  March  no  meet- 
ing of  the  Vestry  was  held ; — there  being  no  business  demanding 
their  attention,  they  did  not  come  together. 

On  the  first  Monday  in  Mai'ch,  in  the  afternoon,  the  Clerk  o' 
the  Board  called  on  the  respondent,  as  had  been  his  custom,  to 
learn  for  what  hour  of  the  next  day  the  Vestry  meeting  should  be 
notified.  The  respondent  told  him  not  to  issue  notices  tiU  he 
should  hear  from  him.  During  that  evening  the  Sen.  Warden  of 
the  Church  informed  the  respondent  that  he  was  engaged  in  the 
Court  of  which  he  is  Clerk,  and  that  he  could  not  therefore  attend  a 
Vestry  meeting ;  that  himself  and  some  members  of  the  Vestry  did 
not  tliink  a  meeting  at  that  time  necessary,  or  even  expedient,  and, 
therefore,  he  was  of  opinion  that  no  notices  should  issue.  On  the 
morning  of  Tuesday,  a  note  was  sent  to  the  Clerk  of  the  Board  to 
this  etfect.f  Thus  the  respondent  rested  until  2  o'clock  P.  M.  of 
ithat  day,  when,  while  at  the  dinner  table,  a  notice  was  put  into  his 
ijbands  of  a  Vestry  meetmg  proposed  to  be  held  at  3  o'clock  then 
following,  at  the  office  of  I.  P.  Hatfield,  and  purporting  to  have 
been  issued  and  signed  by  the  respondent.*  William  Stuart,  Esq., 
who  had  received  a  similar  notice,  called  upon  the  respondent  at 
that  instant.  Surprised  at  the  extraordinary  attempt  thus  made  to 
get  the  Vestry  together,  not  only  not  in  recognition  of  the  Rector, 
but  in  opposition  to  the  expressed  pleasure  of  the  .Sen.  Warden 
and  a  majority  of  the  Vestrymen ;  indignant  at  the  imposition 
which  it  was  evident  was  sought  to  be  practised  by  causing  the  no- 
tices to  issue  as  from  the  respondent,  to  bring  together  those  who 
thought  a  meeting  not  necessary,  as  though  the  respondent  finally 
desired  it;  hurt  by  the  unwarranted  and  unprecedented  liberty 
which  had  been  taken  with  his  name  in  subscril)ing  it  to  the  no- 
tices without  his  knowledge,  and  against  his  expressed  will ;  pained 
.by  the  insult,  as  it  was  deemed,  of  making  the  appointment  for  Hat- 
field's office,  a  place  to  Avhich  it  was  well  known  the  respondent 
could  not  go ;  and  grieved  at  what  was  supposed  to  be  an  effoi't 
to  inflict  upon  him  uijury  and  wrong,  almost  unwarned,  Mr.  Stuart 
and  the  respondent  together  framed  a  note  to  the  Jun.  Wai-den  of 
the  Church,  W.  li.  Adams,  protesting  against  what  was  conceived 
to  be  an  outrage  upon  right,  propriety  and  duty,  pronouncing  the 
notice  for  the  Vestry  meeting  a  forgery^  stating  that  the  Vestry- 


»  Appendix,  A.  t  Apppndix,  B.  J  Appendix,  C 


1'7 

toom  was  the  proper  place  for  holding  Vestry  meetings,  as  the  pre- 
sentment itself  alleges  it  was  the  "  accustometl"  plaee,  and  saying 
that  he  should  be  there  at  three  o'clock.  &c.*  This  note  was  submit- 
ted to  the  Sen.  Warden  of  the  Churcli,  by  whose  approval  it  was 
sent,  agreeably  to  its  address,  a  few  miniites  before  three  o'clock. 
The  respondent  then  left  Messrs.  Davis  and  Stuart, — Avho  said  they 
should  not  go  to  the  meeting  at  all,  .and  that  those  Avho  had  sought 
to  get  it  up  would  accomplish  their  purpose  at  Hatfield's  and  would 
not  go  to  the  Vestry-room, — and  Avent  immediately  to  the  Church 
and  Vestry-room.  There  the  respondent  remained  until  about 
twenty  minutes  past  three  o'clock,  when  he  locked  up  the  Church, 
returned  to  his  house,  made  some  alterations  in  his  dress — by 
whii-h  means  the  key  of  the  Church,  which  had  been  in  his  pocket, 
M-as  throAvn  uiwn  the  bed  in  his  bed-room — and  went,  quickly  as 
possible,  to  call  on  Mrs.  Coon,  a  sick  parishioner  and  comiuuni- 
cjuit,  who  had  previously  sent  for  him.  When  the  respondent  re- 
turned to  his  house,  it  was  twenty-five  minutes  pa-st  three  o'clock  by 
the  time  in  the  house, — Avhich  was  usually  that  of  the  bell,— and  when 
he  left  it  for  Mrs.  Coon's  it  must  have  been  aljout  half-past  three. 

It  was  remarked  to  the  respondent  by  his  little  daughter,  while 
he  was  dressing,  after  his  return  from  the  Church,  that  Mr.  Jacob 
Eussell  had  gone  by  on  the  walk;  and,  soon  after,  that  he  had  re- 
turned and  gone  towards  home.  When  the  respondent  Avent  out, 
he  saAv  neither  Mi*.  Russel  nor  any  of  the  Vestiy. 

The  respondent  denies  that  he  had  any  design  to  elude  the  Vestry 
at  the  date  referred  to.  On  the  contrary,  he  had,  on  the  morning 
of  that  day,  expressly  offered  to  Mr.  W.  H.  Adams  to  call  a  meeting 
of  the  Vestry  for  that  afternoon,  if  it  Avas  desired.  He  Avas  per- 
fectly Avilling  and  ready  both  to  notify  the  meeting  and  to' meet  the 
Vestry,  properly  convened.  Hence  his  declaration  that  he  Avould 
be  at  the  Church  at  three  o'clock,  in  tlie  note  to  Mr.  Adams. 

[That  he  Avould  be  at  the  Chin-ch  at  half  past  three,  or  later,  be- 
fore whrch  the  Vestiy  could  not  have  arrived  there,  he  did  not  say. 
That  he  was  not  there,  agreeably  to  the  tenns  of  his  note,  at  thrpe 
o'clock,  Avas  conjectural  only  Avith  his  opponents ;  and  he  av«rs^>aa 
he  has  proved,  Avas  not  according  to  truth.Jf '    "■'■"''  "'  "'  ■'  '      ■"  ■  '" 

Such  is  the  ansAver  of  the  respondent. to  Article  IT.    ' 

HI.  With  respect  to  Article  III.,  the  respondent  begs  leave  to  sub- 
mit, though  said  article  has  not  been  tried,J  a  full  denial  of  the  al- 
legation, "that  on  a  certain  Sunday  some  time  on  or  about  the  last 
of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty  five,  immediately  after  service  in  the  afternoon  of  that 

•  Appendix,  D.  ^^^,1 

t  If  one  were  to  bo  extreme  to  mark  in  all,  things  corresponding  with  tl>e  allesjations 
in  Article  2d,  which  might  seem  to  bu  amiss,  who  might  not  be  accused  ?  In  iilustra- 
tion,  it  may  with  propi  iety  be  a^ked,  whether  the.  jiishop  laid  himself-  q\h!v\  to  pre- 
fentnieiit  by  appointing  the  basoment  of  6t.  James'  f'nurch  bf  theplace^  and  9  o'clock 
A.  M.  of  AVednesday,  August  26th.  as  the  time,  for  the  trial  nf  the  respondent,  when  and 
where  he  declared  he  would  "be  present  and  preside  as  Moderator ;"  and,  when  the 
time  came,  absenting  himself?  The  Bishop  doubtless  had  his  reasons  foi'  his  course. 
Perhaps,  he  had  concluded  that  to  do  as  he  had  proposed  was  not  expedient.  At  all 
events,  he  was  excused  '. 

Suppose  the  presenters  had  made  ■  enqniiy  as  to  the  truth"  of  the  charge  in  Article 
2d;  would  that  article  in  that  case  have  appeared  in  their  presentment?  Had  this  course 
have  been  pursued,  would  either  Articles  1st  or  2d  have  appearea  ?  Audi  oJt-rorA  pa'- 
tc-.i.  however,  is  a  maxim  otjuctite  to  which  they  were  piacticaily  strangers. 

i  See  Terdict  of  the  Court 


18 

day,"  he  "being  then  Rector  of  Trinity  Chureli,  proceeded  into  thf^ 
country  for  t]ut  professed  purpose  of  holding  divine  service,"  and 
"  tliat  on  said  Sunday"  he  "  did  take  into  the  country  his  gun  arul 
hunting  dog."* 

[The  respondent  allows,  that  during  the  spring  and  summer  of 
1845,  he  was  in  the  habit  of  going  into  the  country  each  Sunday 
afternoon,  at  the  conclusion  of  Evening  Prayer  in  Trinity  Church, 
''  for  the  professed  purjjose  of  holding  divine  service,"  and  that  he 
was  often  accompanied  by  a  dog  belonging  to  liis  little  son  ;  and 
asserts,  that,  on  those  occasions,  he  statedly  perfonned  the  servic*?s 
contemplated.  A  report  of  the  same,  up  to  the  meeting  of  the  Con  - 
vention  in  that  year  was  made  to  the  Bishop,  as  follows :  "  I  have 
oflBciated  eleven  times,  and  administered  the  holy  Communion  onw 
in  the  country,  20  miles  north  of  Chicago,  where  is  an  interesting 
body  of  people,  retdly  attached  to  the  Church,  and  whose  claims 
are  urgent  for  a  missionary  to  gather  them  together  permanently 
in  one,  and  break  to  them  the  "  bread  of  life."  Subsequent  to  this 
report  the  respondent  officiated  for  the  same  people  six  times  ;  but] 
he  avers,  that  after  the  third  Sunday  in  August,  he  did  not  go  into 
the  country  on  Sunday,  at  all.  On  the  4th  Sunday,  he  was  not 
able  to  go.  The  child  of  Col.  Greo.  Davis  died  on  the  morning  of 
the  1st  Sunday  in  September,  and  the  respondent  staid  from  the 
country  on  that  day,  on  that  account,  to  render  the  family  such  as- 
sistance as  he  might,  Col.  Davis  himself  being  al)seiit.  Mrs.  AValk- 
er  was  soon  alter  confined  in  child-bed,  by  which  he  was  kept  at 
home  until  he  went  to  the  South,  whence  he  did  not  return  till  about 
the  middle  of  October;  after  which  he  did  not  go  into  the  country 
on  Sunday  at  all.t 

Therefore,  if  the  denial  charged  in  the  latter  part  of  the  article, 
to  wit :  "  that  afterwards  when  said  Wm.  F.  "Walker  was  asked  if 

•This charge  haTing been  broadly  made  in  the  Presentment,  the  propriety  of  this 
answer  will  be  allowed  by  lovers  of  truth. 

t  A  deposition  on  this  subject,  that  of  Mr.  W.  H.  Davis,  Junior  Warder  of  the  parich 
the  organization  of  which  resulted  from  the  services  noticed— a  deposition  taken  lor  the 
trial— is  as  follows :  "  In  the  summer  of  1H45,  Mr.  Walker  beinjr  acquainted  with  myself 
and  some  others,  who  are  Episcopalians,  we  solicited  his  assistiince  in  prcacliingto  us. 
He  consented  so  to  do,  and  was  in  the  habit  of  being  with  us  almost  invariably  every 
Sunday  evening  from  May  or  June  to,  I  think,  some  time  in  August.  I'art  of  the  time 
Mr.  W.  officiated  in  a  [log]  house  belonging  to  me  in  Lake  i)recinct,  and  some  part  of 
the  time  in  a  house  belonging  to  Mr.  Bennett ;  and  the  balance  of  tlie  time,  when  the 
congregation  became  very  large,  and  the  weather  was  very  warm,  we  had  services  in 
Sherman's  Grove.  For  those  services  we  felt  gratetnl  to  Mr.  Walker,  and  still  do  t  that 
I  can  answer  for  all  the  parish;  it  being  the  only  remuneration  we  could, give  Mr.  W.— 
our  thanks— for  we  were  too  poor;  and  that  is  all  he  did    get,  to  mv  knowledge. 

The  neighborhood  in  which  Mr.  W.  thus  officiated  is  about  20  miles  from  Chicago. 
His  arrival  was  usually  about  6  o'clock— bijfore  dark.  ,  I  don't  recollect  our  ever  having 
services  by  candle  light  " 

The  afternoon  services  of  the  respondent  In  Trinity  CHiurch  were  held  during  this 
season  at  2',  o'clock.  He  usually  started  from  Chicago  about  ten  minutes  before 
4  o'clock,  and  performed  his  drive 'bv  ahout  6.  as  stated  by  Mr.  Davis. 

"  That  on  said  Sunday  the  said  W.  F.  Walker  did  take  into  the  country  his  gun^  and 
hunting  dog,"  is  a  charge  that  was  ben;otten,  it  is  believed,  in  the  suspicion.^  and  ran- 
corous imagination  of  a  presenter;  and  was  brought  forth  to  aid  him  in  his  work  of 
creating  a  prejudice  against  the  respondent,  and  eff'ecting  his  separation  from  his 
Church  and  people  It  is  in  his  evidence,  for  he  is  a  witness  in  the  case,  "  I  wanted 
that  he,"  Mr.  W.,  "  should  leave,  that  another  person  might  be  substituted  in  his  place. 
1  am  opposed  to  him."  t   i  j  u- 

That  the  opposition  of  this  man  was  active  is  in  the  evidence  in  the  case.  It  led  him 
to  declaim  against  the  respondent  among  the  members  of  his  parish ;  to  treat  him  with 
rudeness  when  he  met  him;  on  the  public  street  to  heap  upon  him  opprobrious  epithets; 
to  incite  members  of  his  Vestry  to  act  against  him;  to  evince  violence  of  manner  at  the 
Kaster  Election;  to  write  to  the  Bishop  complaining  of  the  respondent,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  asking  that  he  might  be  tried,  and  pledging  hinL-self,  with  others,  for  the  costs  of 
his  trial,  should  it  be  granted.  Yet  was  lie.  by  the  lii.Miop,  appointed  one  of  the  '■  live 
persons'  to  "enrjuire  as  to  the  truth  of  the  charges  '  again.st  the  resiiondcnt; "  toexnmme 
the  case ;"  to  aecerlaiu  whether  there  was  '•  sufllcicut  ground  for  his  presentment :'' 


19 

he  did  take  his  dog  and  G:iin  into  tlie  country  on  Sundnys,  as  afore- 
said, denied  the  same,"  is  to  be  understood  of  what  is  alleged  in  tho 
former  part,  it  is  repeated  and  mainttiined. 

Or,  if  the  latter  part  of  said  article  is  intended,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested to  your  Board,  to  assert  a  habit  in  the  respondent,  and  the 
denial  is  to  be  understood  as  relating  to  that,  it  is  still  maintained. 
The  respondent  denies  the  charge  in  any  and  every  sense  that  has 
been  put  upon  it. 

Such  is  the  answer  which  the  respondent  desires  to  make  to  Ar- 
ticle III. 

IV.  With  respect  to  Article  IV.,  the  respondent  submits  that 
truth  is  at  the  basis  of  the  article,  though  that  truth  is  not  so  stated 
jis  to  convey  a  true  impression  of  the  facts  alleged.  The  entire 
truth  relative  to  the  matters  referred  to  is  as  follows : 

April  24th,  the  respondent  addressed  the  letter  to  the  Bishop, 
which  is  on  the  files  of  your  Board,  marked  E,*  on  the  subject  of 
consecrating  Trinity  Church  and  confirming  therein,  and  invitiug 
the  Bishop  to  accept  the  hospitalities  of  the  respondent's  house  ; . 
but,  at  the  same  time,  intinfiating  that  Mr,  Sherwood,  Warden,  would 
probably  claim  to  entertain  him.  May  6th,  a  letter  was  received 
from  the  Bishop  in  reply,  under  date  of  April  30th,  which  is  also  on 
3'our  iiles,t  propounding  certain  queries  relative  to  Trinity  Church, 
and  concluding  thus  :  "  When  I  shall  coinmerice  my  visitations  of 
the,  Diocese  1  am  unable  to  say.  I  trust  to  be  well  enough  to  at- 
tend the  convention  of  the  diocese  on  the  IGth.  of  June,  at  Spring- 
field. From  there  1  shall  try  to  visit  Alton,  Albion,  Chester  and 
Quincy.  Perhaps  I  may  go  to  the  northern  parts  of  my  diocese* 
in  the  fall."  May  6th,  the  day  following,  that  letter  was  laid  be- 
fore the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and,  from  their  minutes,  it  ap- 
pears that  "  the  Corresponding  Secretary  was  requested  to  answer 
the  same.  That  officer,  Wm.  Stuart,  Esq.,  made  the  answer  con- 
templated at  once,  and  gave  the  Bishop  a  full  statement  of  all  the 
particulars  to  which  his  enquii-ies  had  regard.f  About  that  time, 
Mrs.  Sherwood  was  spoken  to  by  the  respondent  on  the  subject  of 
the  proposed  invitation  of  the  Bishop,  and  of  the  respondent's  sug- 
gestion to  him  that  her  house  should  be  made  his  home  during  his 
stay.  Not  far  from  one  month  subsequently,  the  respondent  met 
the  Bisho})  in  convention  at  Springfield.  During  that  convention, 
iie  your  Board  are  aware,  the  Bishop  announced  that  Trinity 
Church  in  Chicago  was  in  debt,  and  he  would  not  consecrate  it  un- 
til its  debt  should  be  paid  off".  AVhen  the  respondent  returned  to 
Chicago  he  told  the  friends  of  Trinity  Church  what  was  the  mind 
of  the  Bishop,  as  he  had  stated  it.  July  18th,  the  respondent  re- 
ceived the  letter  from  the  Bishop,  under  date  of  July  12th,  on  your 
files  marked  G,§  in  Avhich  he  says  :  ''If  you  will  do  the  same  with 
Trinity,"  that  is,  "  pay  off  the  debt  which  it  at  present  owes,  1 
will  do  the  same  duty,"  that  is,  "  consecrate  the  church  in  Chicago 
on  AVednesday,  the  29th  of  July."  That  nothing  could  or  would 
be  done  by  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  at  that  time  relative  to 
what  was  termed  the  "  church  debt,"  the  respondent  well  knew,  and 
was  assured  of;  and  as  the  Bishop  had  been  addressed  by  the  ves-', 

■'•'JSLpilenii'ii'l'k."    '' "  1  Al'l'CudLS;  F.  i  Aiipeudix,  G.         ?  Ajiiicudix,!!. 


30 

try  on  that  subject,  the  respondent  thought  and  believed  that  the 
matter  was  then  between  his  vestry  and  tlie  Bishop;  and  feeling  an 
unwilingness  to  enter  into  the  linaucial  affairs  of  the  Church  at 
all,  he  left  the  matter  with  the  vestry.  No  turther  eommunication 
from  the  Bishop  was  received,  nor  was  any  notice  or  appointment, 
either  for  the  consecration  of  Trinity  Church,  or  lor  the  adminis- 
tration of  confirmation  therein,  ever  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  respondent.  To  this  did  his  denial  that  ''  he  had  ever  received 
any  notice  or  letter  from  the  Bishop,"  extend ;  it  was  so  made 
to  Wm.  Stuart,  Esq.,  and  others,  at  a  meeting  of  ladies  at  Mrs. 
Foote's.  And  it  is  here  renewed  :  the  respondent  still  avers,  that 
he  had  no  notice  that  the  Bishop  was  coming  to  visit  Trinity 
Church.  Neither  his  parishioners,  nor  him^ielf,  therefore,  expect- 
ed him.  That  he  did  frequently  say,  after  the  Bishop  had  been 
here,  and  he  had  been  told  that  the  Bishop  had  claimed  that  he 
should  have  consecrated  Trinity  Church,  and  confirmed  therein, 
that  he  had  received  no  canonical  notice  that  the  Bishop  was 
coming  to  Chicago  for  any  such  purposes,  or,  indeed,  any  notice  at 
all  respecting  confirmation,  he    admits,  and  maintains.  "" 

Such  is  the  answer  of  the  respbndeilt  to  Article  IV.  ^  ' '' 

V.  With  respect  to  Article  V.,  the  respondent  submits  as  follows : 
That  at  the  time  the  presentment  of  1844  Avas  made  to  the 
Bishop,  he  was  anxious  for  an  immediate  investigation,  and  urged 
the  Bishop  to  allow  the  provisions  of  Canon  with  respect  to  time 
to  elapse  before  trial,  assessors,  &c.,  to  be  waived,  and  to  inves- 
tigate all  the  matters  charged  against  the  respondent  himself;*  that 
he  had  hoped  this  would  be  done,  till  the  morning  of  June  12th, 
when  a  letter  from  the  Bishop  was  put  into  his  hands  by  Rev.  Mr. 
Kellogg,  and  he  was,  at  the  same  time,  informed  that  the  Bishop 
was  then  on  the  steamboat,  and  was  to  leave  the  city  in  a  few  mo- 
ments ;  that  the  respondent  was  exceedingly  grieved  by  the 
thought  of  being  left  by  the  Bishop  with  that  presentment  over 
him ;  and  that,  under  the  influence  of  highly  wrought  and  most 
anxious  feelings,  he  run  to  the  boat,  eagerly  sought  the  Bishop,  and 
on  finding  him,  the  following  conversation,  &c.  occurred : — 

"  Ml?.  Walker." — Wliy,  Bishop !  you  are  not  going  away  now  to 
leave  me  in  this  position — with  these  charges  over  me  ?  Do  stay, 
and  let  the  whole  come  up  before  you  to-day  for  investigation  and' 
trial.  You  must  not  go ;  you  cannot  go  and  leave  me  thus.  Dp 
stay  to-day.  ,,' 

"The  Bishop. — I  cannot.  I  must  go;— but  you  write  rae  a  let- 
ter at  Detroit,  such  as  I  have  suggested  in  the  letter  handed  you 


*  Canon  XIV.  of  1833,  fseejpage  6,  Sect.  13,)  was  nt  tlijs  time  in  force.— Sect.  6  of  that 
Canon  provided,  that  "  the  time  between  the  day  of  service"  of  the  Citation  and  "the 
day  ,of  upiiearauce-'  showW  bo  "  not  less  than  t:\venty  day,"  over  and  above  the  ordinary 
time  re(iuired  to  travel  to  the  place  of  ap])earance." — Sect,  5  of  the  same  Canon  pWJvi- 
diBdithat  "  not  less  than  three  or  more  tlian  six  I'l-esbyteri*,  selected  by  the  accused  out 
of  a  list  of  twelve,  '  shoujd  "be  assessors  with  the  Bi'shoi),''  presiding  "  on  thetrial  88 
judere." — Sect  2  of  the  same  made  "  the  house  of  the  15ishop  tlie  rejjular  place  of  trial." 

These  and  such  like  provisions  favoring  the  accused,  under  ordinary  circumstances, 
■were  those  which,  in  this  case,  the  Bishop  wa.s  urged  to  allow  to  be  waived.  The  ac- 
cused wished  to  make  answer  to  the  charges  against  him  at  once  before  the  Bishop  as 
Judge,  and  final  arbiter. 

For  (anon  XIV.  of  1838  in  full ;  the  Tresentment  of  1844  ;  and  the  papers  above,  re- 
Jerrcd  to,  with  others  in  the  same  connection,  see  Appendix  I.  '' 


21 

by  Mr.  Kellogg,  and  I  will  give  you  a  letter  iii  reply  that  shall  be 
to  your  heart's  content — all  that  you  can  wish. 

"  Mr.  AYalker. — But,  Bishop,  I  Avould  rather  have  the  matters 
investigated.  I  do  not  want  them  dropped  so.  These  things  have 
been  alleged  against  me,  and,  I  think,  without  reason.  I  can  show 
to  you  that  they  have  resulted  from  local  feelings  and  personal 
hostility,  and  are,  for  the  most  part,  mere  misunderstandings;  and 
that  I  am  persecuted  and  oppressed  without  cause ;  and  if  so,  and 
I  can  show  it,  then  those  who  have  pursued  me  should  themselves 
be  admonished.  It  is  better  that  the  matters  be  investigated  as  I 
have  proposed.     Do  therefore  stay,  and  let  tliis  be  done. 

"  The  Bishop. — {Putting  his  arms  around  the  respondent,  and 
emhracing  him) — Walker,  I  love  you.  I  have  suffered  the  same 
things  myself.  I  got  up  from  my  prayers  this  morning  feeling  just 
so — (pressing  the  respondent.)  You  write  me  the  letter,  attend 
to  the  scholarship,  and  all  will  be  well.  I  can  admonish  tliem, 
{alluding  to  the  responde7ifs  pursuers)  better  by  letter ;  and  the 
Avhole  matter  can  be  better  settled  so.  Send  Haff  to  Jubilee  right 
away;  and  if  we  don't  do  every  thing  just  to  your  satisfaction,  or 
that  should  be  done  for  him,  you  may  say  that  old  Bishop  Chase 
has  bamboozled  you.  ,    .  .     f 

"Mr.  Walker.-^ — "Well,  Bishop,  it  must  be  as  you  say.  Good- 
bye," &c.  &c. 

So  much  for  that  part  of  the  Article  which  relates  to  th0,'int^ri! 
view  with  the  Bishop.  i 

In  relation  to  the  "  Court  of  Inquiry  at  St.  James'  Church,"  the 
respondent  avers,  that  he  never  "  stated  to  various  persons,  mem- 
bei's  of  his  Church,"  or  to  any  other  persons,  that  said  Court  "  had 
failed  to  find  any  charges  against  him ;"  but  admits  that  he  has 
characterized  those  charges,  at  various  times,  as  based  on  light  and 
frivolous  grounds,  or  in  local  feelings  and  personal  variance ; — has 
said  that  they  arose  to  a  great  extent  out  of  a  Ladies'  Society,  &e.* 

As  to  the  last  clause  of  the  Article,  to  wit:  that  the  respondent 
"  did  publicly,  openly,  and  knowingly  state  that  the  Bishop  did  not 
write  to  him  any  such  letter  as  he,  the  Bishop,  had  promisecj  to 
write ;"  the  respondent  admits,  that  he  has  frequently  and  openly 
expressed  the  deep  disappointment  which  he  did  feel  on  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  letter  from  the  Bishop  from  Buffalo,  under  date  of 
June  20th, — a  disappointment  the  sadness  of  which  your  Board 
may  gather  from  a  perusal  of  a  letter  from  Bishop  Chase  of  date 
of  June  12th,  and  that  of  the  respondent  to  the  Bishop  of  the  same 
date,  both  of  which  are  on  your  files ;  and  that  he  has  said  that  the 
letter  received  from  the  Bishop  last  referred  to  is  not  such  a  letter 
as  was  promised  him,  he  does  not  deny,  but  rather  admits, — whe- 
ther justly  or  not  your  Board  wiU  determine.!  , 

Such  is  the  answer  of  the  respondent  to  Article  Vl.J      "> 

*  The  charges  alluded  to  are  those  in  the  Presentment  of  1844.    See  Appendix  J. 

t  Appendix  K. 

t  It  will  be  seen,  that  Articles  4th  and  5th  in  the  Presentment  essentially  depends  for 
the  maintainauce  of  the  allegations  which  they  contain,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Bi- 
.«hop.  That  the  Bishop  was  not  in  Chicago  to  furnish  statements  on  -which  to  found 
those  articles  is  certain  ;  that  he  could  have  furnished  statements  to  support  their  alle- 
gations will  hardly  be  believed  by  any  who  may  read  the  papers  referred  in  connection 
with  them  in  the  Appendix. 

But  that  the  Bishop  appeared  as  a  witness  against  the  respondent,  on  the  trial,  istrue7 
and  that  he  deposed  according  to  the  tenor  of  those  articles  is  also  true, — with  what 
gentleness  and  kindness,  and  consideration  for  the  respondent  was  observed  by  a  nu- 
merous congregation  in  attendance  at  the  time. 


S2 

r  VI.  ^W^th  respect  to  Article  VJ.,  the  respondent  ofTers  a  tlienml 
of  the  alU'^iUicm  that  he,  on  the  excursion  therein  refeiTed  to, 
"  t(K)k  with  liim  at  the  time  of  said  excursion  a  bottle  of  wine  ;"  and 
allirms  that  the  wine  was  taken  by  his  companion  ; — the  respondn 
ent  further  denies,  that  he  "  well  knew"  that  the  "  younj?  man,' 
Glass,"  was  "  a  member  of  the  Temperance  Society  ;" — on  the 
contrai'y,  he  would  have  inferred  the  opposite  from  the  fact  of  his 
being  a  communicant  in  the  Church ;  the  Church  not  recognizing 
Temperance  Societies,  and  few,  comparatively,  of  her  members 
having  any  coimection  with  them.  To  the  other  port^  of  the  Ar- 
ticle, answer  does  not  appear  to  be  required.  Whether  or  not  the 
things  thei'ein  alleged  occurred  seems  to  the  res})ondent  to  be  im- 
material, as  no  moral  delinquency  is  involved.* 

yil.  With  respect  to  Article  VII.,  liie  resiiondenl  deems  it  suf- 
ficient to  say,  that  the  ofierings  and  the  entire  income  of  Trinity 
Church  were  voted  by  the  Vestry,  Sept.  2,  1845,  on  motion  of  S. 
J.  Sherwood,  as  his  salary,  subject  only  to  the  payment  of  the  cur- 
rent and  contingent  expenses  of  said  Church.  The  minutes  of  the 
Vestry  containing  that  resolution,  are  on  your  files.f  The  de*: 
raand  of  Mr.  Hatfield  was,  therefore,  for  a  matter  that  was  purely 

•The  "  young  man,  Gla-^s."'  called  hy.the  presenters,  was  the  onlv  witness  with  re- 
sj^ect  to  the  matters  charged  in  Article  3il.  3Ir.  Stuart  was  in  Xew  York  at  tlie  tihie  ; 
and  the  allegatious  were  not  deemed,  by  the  respondent's  Counsel,  of  .sullicient  iinp.ort-f 
ance  to  warrant  the  trouble  and  e.\])ense  of  iirocurinp  him  as  a  witness,  or  of  {jeftiiif^'h'iis 
deposition  to  rebut  or  explain  thein.  The  result  satislied  aa  to  this  ondssioa  ;  the  -viit- 
r.essofthe  presenters  having  done  both  sufficiently.  As  a  key  to  some  things  con-, 
nected  with  this  ca.xe,  let  the  allegations  of  the  pre8enters,and  thb  statements  of  tbtSr' 
wituese  be  seen  side  by  side :         ,,     ,|i|..  .'  '  )  •  (,;   .  , 


ARTiCL^eth.— The  Presenters.  Ghuu 'he  K'tneas : 

"  We  had  some  wine  alonj 
know  by  whom  it  was  taken- 
by  Mr.  Stuart  or  Mr.  Walker.' 


"  Said  Walker  took  with  him  at  the  time       "  We  had    some  wine  along ;  I  do  n'dt' 
of  said  excursion  a  bottle  of  wine."  know  by  whom  it  was  taken— whether,  by 


"  Said  Walker  did  at  the  time  drink  of  "  I  do  not  recollect  certainly  whether, 
eaid  wine,  and  oifered  the  same  to  the  said  Mr.  W.  or  Jlr.  S.  drank  ftrct  ol  that  whic  ' 
Stuart  and  the  said  Glass."  1  have  an  idea  that  Mr.  W.  drank  linst,  but 

I  do  not  recollect. 

'•  The  two  gentlemen  drank  about  a  Wine 
gla.«s  a  piece.  I  drank  of  what  wa*  handed 
to  me,  aud  threw  the  rest  out." 

"And  at  the  same  time  did  advise  the        '    \     .' 
said  UlasB,  though  being  a  young  man  and  ,  ■  • :      -i »     :     .■  I'll 

a  member  of  the  Temperance  Society."  ,;'  .^j  j    (■).);j;ir,'i(i  z-> 

,,")Sai(i  .Walker  well  knowing  the  same."       "I  do  not  know  whether  or  Aot'MfirJV.' 
,         ^j-  was  at  that  time  aware  that  I  was. a  mem- 

n'lfiOO.  'Ill''  ber  of  the  Temperance  Society. 

"I  don't  think  he  is  or  waa  a  member; 
the  1'.  l-;.  Church  liiis  no  cynunction  with 
Temperance  Societies." 

I, 

"  Saying  it  would  be  no  violation  of  his       •'  Mr.  W.  made  the  remark.  •  this  cannot, 

(Glass'J  pledge  as  no  water  was  at  hand.''     be  considered  a  violation  of  the  Tcnip^J' 

^    auce  i)ledge,as  there  is  po  water  at  hauij.' Jj. 

"On  account  of  which,  the  said  Glass  "I  think  tire  remark  made  by  Mr.  Wtt 
taking  the  advise  of  said  Walker,  did  driuk  about  the  Temperance  pledge  was  a  gen- 
ofsoidwine."  eral  obsenation;  I  do  not  know  that  it 

was  made  to  me  particularly. 
:'-  ■    •  "I  was,  in  a  measure,  induced  to  drink 

by  this  remark." 

',-an..>-i  ),■■ 

Glass  i«  believed  to  be  a  young  man  of  truth.  If  he  be,  his  storv  before  the  present- 
ers was  sub.stantially  the  statement  above  given,  which  wa.s  his  testimony  on  the  triai. 
But  howdothe  allegations  of  the  presenters  ditier  from  that  tcMimonv  :  How  far  be- 
yond  the  testimony  does  the  6th  Article  of  the  Presentment  go !  Did  the  "  good  of  the 
Church"  require  this?  Why  was  it  so  laid?  And  why  was  not  a  statement  obtained  froni 
Air.  Stuart  ?     See  Pre/act ;  anU  nolef  on  pagfs  4  and  13. 

-lid  «7d  \,;ivMQ  tr'il  JfWbUOfpvl  f.lAPWftWlct^  '  '•»« 


23 

withiii  the  ri'jjhtji  of  the  respomlent.  He  was  at  thnt  time,  by 'tacit 
consent,  TrciL^urer  for  the  rcspoiKJcnt  only,  anJ  not  for  the  Vestry^ 
in  so  far  a,s  tlic  revenues  of  the  (Church  were  concerned.  ' 

■•■■  iThere  had  been  excitement  in  the  earlier  stage  of  the  interview 
^between  Hatfield  and  the  respondent,  [regarding  interests  foreign 
to  Trinity  Church.]  The  respondent,  [at  the  time  of  Hatfield's 
rail  and  during  his  stay,]  was  driven  by  private  matters  requiring 
his  attention,  being  engaged  in  ]>reparing  matter  for  the  press, 
which  was  then  urging  him.  Hence,  [he  was  naturally  somewhat 
impatient  at  Hatfield's  continued  interruption  of  him ;  and,  per- 
haps, W!is  somewhat  excited  by  his  peculiar  and  imperative  man- 
ner, and  the  indelicate  and  otFensive  pertinacity  of  his  demand.J 
He  was  informed  by  the  respondent  that  the  matter  which  he  had 
required  could  not  then  be  attended  to ;  moreover,  that  he  should 
not  be  so  importunate,  for  the  interest  was  the  respondent's  solely ; 
and  that,  if  he  continued  his  demand,  it  would  not  be  granted. 
The  respondent,  at  the  same  time,  claimed,  what  the  manner  of 
Hatfield  most  naturally  and  properly  suggested,  that  he  should  bo 
treated  as  a  gentleman  in  his  own  house.  Not  a  word  escajied  the 
respondent  on  the  subject  of  Hatfield's  leaving  the  house,  or  of  the 
house  being  left  by  one  Avho  might  insult  the  respondent,  as  is  al- 
leged in  the  Aiticle.  The  imagination  of  the  com|)lainant  Hat- 
field must  have  caused  him  to  magnify  the  occurrcjices  of  that  in- 
terview ;  and  led  him,  under  the  influence  of  tlnvaited  feelings,  to 
aJlege  occurrences  which  never  happened,  or  as  they  never  ha})- 
pened. 

It  was  matter  of  surprise  to  the  respondent  subsequently,  to 
know  that  Hatfield  had  asserted  that  on  the  occasion  referred  to, 
he  "  had  been  turned  out  of  the"  respondent's  "  house." 

As,  however,  Hatfield  })rofessed  to  have  been  "  grieved" !  by 
what  had  occurred,  the  respondent  was  willing  to  [consider  his 
weakness,  forgive  his  insolence,  and]  make  peace.  He,  therefore, 
offered  him  his  hand  as  a  pledge  of  reconciliation  when  next  ho 
met  him.  That  it  was  accei)ted,  but  without  a  response  from  Hat- 
field such  as  the  overture  demanded,  is  not  the  fault  of  the  re-* 
spondent. 

Such  is  the  Answer  of  the  respondent  to  Article  VIL* 


•  The  testimony  offered  with  respect  to  Article  7th,  was  that  of  the  single  witness' 
Uatfield,  and  was  as  follows  :— 

'•  I  did  call  on  Mr.  W..  as  Treasurer  of  Trinity  Ghnrch,  on  Monday  mominjr,  Jan'v 
19 — last  January.  I  asked  Mr.  W.  to  give  me  an  account,  and  not  the  money,  of  thti 
otferinofs  by  him  received  on  Sunday  morniiijr,  Jan'y  11,  previous.  Mr.  W.  .said  that  it 
matters  not  now ;  when  I  said,  in  my  usual  way  of  speakine,  '  Oh,  yes.  you  must  pive,' 
— ae  by  re(iuest  only,  I  used  the  words  must. — -must  give  me  an  account  of  the  offer- 
ings ;'  and,  at  the  same  time,  extended  to  him  a  blank  piece  of  paper,  for  him  to  write) 
down  the  amount.  He  replied  very  harshly  and  in  anger,  that  the  money  was  his.  and 
he  would  do  with  it  what  he  ])!eased,  and  that  I  should  not  say  must  to  him  ;  '  any  man 
that  says  must  to  me  in  my  own  house  insults  me;  and  any  man,  sir,  that  insults  me  itK 
my  own  house  may  walk  out  of  it.'  I  accordingly  took  my  hat,  made  a  bow,  and  bid 
him  good  morning. 

'•  It  was  my  custom,  as  Treasurer,  to  receive  the  weekly  ofTerings,  and  to  kPCp  an  aOii 
count  of  them  in  the  books  as  Trea^iurer.  1  generally  took  them  from  the  plate.  Hei 
took  them  on  Sunday,  Jan'y  11th ;  I  was  not  present.  _       i' 

■■  Mr.  James  A.  Marshall  was  present  at  the  interview  between  me  an^  Mn  W.'inli'e-i 
lation  to  the  oft'erings.  .     .  vii    ■       j:  t;       > 

'•  My  opinion  is  that  Mr.  W.  ought  not.  from  the  manner  in  which  1  spoke,  to  hare 
understood  me  as  using  commanding  lanpiage.  1  did  not  so  intend  it ;  but  he  might 
so  have  considered  it.    lit  was  at  Ihc  time  1  calkd  engaged  in  other  business.    I  eaw 


24 

yilt  "With  respqct  to  Article  VIII.,  the  respondent  will  say, 
that  he  never  preached  a  sermon  on  "  Epiphany  Sunday,"  and  for 
this  most  conclusive  reason,  that  there  is  no  such  Sunday  in  the 
Calendar ;  that  the  sernlon  complained  of  was  preached  on  the 
fourtii  Sunday  alter  Epii>hany,  (Feb.  1  ;)  that  said  sermon  was  not 
intended  lor  the  special  application  alleged,  having  been  written 
eleven  years  a^o,  and  i'ov  a  parish  in  the  East  of  which  the  re- 
spujiident  then  had  charge  ;  that  it  contains  no  matter  for  just  com- 
plaint; that  it  can  be  esteemed  personal  or  special  in  its  bearings 
or  teachings  by  such  only  as  by  previous  circumstances  may  have 
come  into  that  peculiar  intellectual  and  moral  state  which  leads  to 
the  attribution  of  imagined  evil  as  though  it  were  real;  [that  it 
makes  no  reference  eitker  dii-ect  or  by  implication  to  "  the  ladies  of 
the  tSewing  Society ;  that  it  contains  not  a  word  or  intimation  on 
the  subject  of  the  appropriation  on  non-appropriation  of  moneys,  in 
any  way;  nioreover,  that  it  had  "in  view  the  celebration  of  the 
C,o^ft>iftnnipn ;!':  ao4,  i(itlj(e  ix?spondent  may  say  it,  against  the  jjdg- 
-id  hUi^rA-    ill  Ji...i  Jyil-">V^ 

■'•    '   ■  :■;        !''i'i  '    ■• 
that  lt«  ^-as  cii{!;ap;e{l  when  1  went  in.    ITp  niifrht  have  said  he  was  too  much  engaged 
wJtli  otl;er  busiiiefs  at  that  tiine:  1  do  not  recollect  of  his  saying  it. 

'■  JLr.  \y.  liad  received  the  oftR'rings  beiore,  oiioe  or  twice,  iu  which  cases  he  gave  me 
an  accoii  lit  of  tlieni. 

"1  amnot  a  communicant  of  the  P>  E.  Church  ;  do  not  know  that  I  have  ever  been 
bapti/.cd. 

*'  1  arii21  years  old  and  over;  am  collector  and  general  agent." 

Article  7th  was  deemed  by  the  Counsel  of  the  respondent  frivolous,  and  unworthy  of 
notice  ;  tlievefore  they  were  unwilling  to  weary  themselves  and  the  Court  by  thecxami- 
nation  of  Mr.  Marshall,  who  was  present  and  would  have  testified,  to  rebut  or  explain 
it»,  Thev  believed  tlie  Court  would  view  it  as  they  did.  The  contrary  lias  transpired. 
Tienqe  it  has  been  deemed  a  duty  to  iiieseut  the  testimony  on  wliich  the  verdict  of  the 
Oonrt  ne,sis,  tliat  others  also  may  juilgo  resjieefing  it. 

The  atiidiu  it  of  Mr.  Jlarshallis  hereto  subjoined.  j)re8euting  that  to  wliicli  he  wouJd 
have  (lejiosed  on  the  trial,  had  he  JiCen  called.  It  \\  ill  be  jjudi^e<l  tiom  an  e.xuiiiiiiation 
of  this  altidavit,  with  the  testimony  of  ilatlield— a  '•  switt  witness  in  the  cote"' — liow 
■wisely,  and  witli  what  a  measure  of  regard  tor  the  "  good  of  the  Church""  Article  7th 
Was  laid  !  and  in  bow  severe  a  sense  the  verdict  of  the  Court  should  be  understood. 

How  impartiully  the  presenters  proceeded  in  laying  Article  7th,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact,  that  they  did  not  call  >Ir.  Marshall  ;  that  one  side,  that  of  Hattield — 
{(gainst  th(?  accnp«l,-^was  all  they  heard  or  regarded!  Was  this  to  '-examine  the 
case;"  to  J' enquire  as  to  the  truth  ;■'  '      .r 

The  solemnity  of  an  oath  in  the'  estimation  of  the  witness,  Hntfield,  may  be  partially 
inferred  from  liis  testimony  as  to  his  age,  given  above ;  he  is  in  fact  nearly  40  years  old! 

His  opposition  to  the  resiiondont,  sworn  to  by  himself  before  the  Court,  and  openly 
avowed  ;  his  manner  in  testifying,  and  luimerous  incoiisisfencies  and  contradictions  of 
which  he  wai<  convictetl,  were  within  the  kuowledsro  of  the  Court. 

It  was  supposed  that  he  was  so  far  impeached  tliat  no  credit  would  be  given  to  hia 
statements. 

The  Court  were  not  of  the  same  opinion.  The  following  aflidavit  will  show  their  mis- 
take, iu  part. 

.Tnmes  A.  Marshall  maketh  oath  that  he  was  present  at  the  interview  between  Isaac 
1'.  Hatfield  and  the  Kev.  W.  F.  Walker  on  thelyth  January.  lS4i5.  referred  to  in  Article 
7th  of  the  presentment  against  said  AV.  F.  Walker,  and  that  during  said  interview  said 
Hatfield  became  boisterous  in  his  conversation,  and  grotestpie  in  his  gestures,  and  de- 
manded rather  than  asked  lor  the  oll'erings  reterredto  ;  that  said  Walker  was  at  the 
time  very  much  engaged,  and  informed  said  Hatfield  that  he  could  not  then  attend  to 
the  application  ;  siiid  Walker,  however,  claimed  the  offerings  as  his  own,  as  having 
been  made  so  by  a  vote  of  the  Vestry ;  therefore  said  Hatfield  should  iiot  ,eav  that  he 
must  have  them  or  an  account  of  them,  (which  in  the  mean  time  he  bad  demanded,)  for 
that  if  he  did  so  peremptorily  insist,  that  he,  Hattield,  should  not  have  them  ;  Mr. 
Walker  saying  at  the  same  time  that  he  would  be  treated  like  a  gentleman  in  hi.s  own 
house  ;— whereupon  said  Hatheld  replied,  "  Veryhvell,  sir;  very  well,  sir— good  morn- 
ing, sir,"  and  left  the  house  in  a  rude  and  ungentlemanly  wav,  pulling  the  door  to  be- 
hind him  in  a  violent  and  insulting  manner.  Mr.  Walker  did  not  evince  any  temper, 
that  could  be  considered  unchristian,  although  he  seemed  excited  under  the  unreasona- 
ble provocation  given  him  by  Hatfieid  ;  but  Mr.  Walker  did  not  say  any  thing  to  Hat- 
field onthe.subject  of  his  (Hatfield's)  leaving  the  house.  That  this  deponent  is  a  mer- 
chant in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  a  communicant  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Chnrch  in 
said  city.  JAS.  A.  MARSHALL. 

Sworn  to  before  mc  this  13th  day  of  November  A.  D.  1846. 

F.  A.  HOWE.  J.  r. 


25 

ment  of  Article  Stli,  w;is  siiitiible  to  the  occiii^ion,  If  the  Epistle  for 
the  day  may  be  deemed  suggestive  of  a  tit  topic  tor  discourse.* 

It  is  also  a  part  of  ''  the  truth"  in  the  case — and  duty  requires 
that  "  that  the  whole  truth"  should  be  told — that  the  respondent 
had  not,  '*'  as  was  by  them  supposed,"  requested  the  appropriation 
of  "  monies  belonging  to  said  sewing  Society ;"  that,  "  in  conse- 
quence of  said  sermon,"  bat  two  members  of  said  Trinity  Church 
did  absent  themselves  from  the  communion,  feeling  scandalized  by 
said  sermon  ;"  that  "  said  sermon"  ''  was"  not,  therefore,  "  the  cause 
of  offence  to  many  persons,  niembers  of  said  Church  ;"  find  that 
the  respondent  would  at  once  have  made  all  and  any  requisite  "  ex- 
planation of  said  sermon,"  had  he  been  informed,  by  the  parties 
professedly  "  feeling  scandalized"  by  it,  of  the  scandal  they  pro- 
fessed to  feel. 

The  respondent  could  not  have  made  any  "  retraction  of  said 
sermon  ;"  but  he  would  have  "  made  enquiries  into  the  cause  of 
said  members  absenting  themselves  from  the  communion,"  had 
such  absences  been  unusual,  or  had  there  been  reason  to  believe 
that,  in  the  cases  of  the  said  two  "  members,"  either  themselves  or 
the  Church  were  likely  to  suffer.  Indeed,]  he  did  "  make  expla- 
nation of  said  sermon"  soon  after  he  learnt  that  it  was  complained 
of;  and  that  in  the  same  public  manner,  in  which  he  was  accused 
of  having  sinned. f  That  the  complainants  were  not  thereby  sat- 
istied,  is  not  to  be  charged  upon  him.  For  some  cause,  it  suited 
them  rather  to  retain  their  harsh  judgment,  and  to  continue  to  this 

The  fol!owin;j  tostimony  toiwliiug  the  witness  Hatfleld  with  respect  to  the  respoudent 
was  given  on  the  trial : 

"  He  (Hatfield)  said  he  hoped  Mr.  AV.  would  resiarn  ;  tliat  if  he  would  resign  honora- 
bly, they  should  be  glad  ;  th;it  if  he  did  not  re.-ign,  charges  would  be  preferred  against 
him,  and  he  would  be  presented  to  the  Hishop  ;  that  if  no  one  else  would  do  it,  he  would. 

"  i  think  I  told  him  it  was  useless  to  report  such  .stories,  [alluding  to  stories  that  had 
been  circulated  by  himself  and  others,]  us  they  did  not  do  any  good.  He  made  the  re- 
mark, that  it  was  nccessary.to  keep  stories  in  circulation  to  get  rid  of  or  cause  an  Epis- 
copal mini.ster  to  resign  ;  that  the  excitement  should  be  kept  up,  as  it  was  rather  a  difli- 
cuit  matter  to  get  rid  of  an  Episcopal  minister  ;  that  what  stories  there  were  against 
the  minister  should  be  kept  in  circulafiou  previous  to  [the  Easter]  election." 

'■  I  consider  it  a  difficult  job  to  get  rid  of  an  Episcopalian  clergyman  ;■'  and,  "  I  would 
not  compromise  my  opposition  to  Mr.  W.  as  Kector  of  Trinity  Church,"  were  in  the  tes- 
timony of  Hatfield  himself. 

Jfow  this  is  the  party  in  Article  7th,  and  the  witnes.s  upon  whose  unsupported,  yea, 
conflicting  testimony  the  f'ourti  rendered  their  decision  as  given  in  the  Verdict  on  that 
Article,  tie,  an  unchristian,  hostile  man,. judged  of  the  temj.erof  the  respondent;  tho 
>.  ourt  adopted  his  judgment,  and  it  staml.s  as  their  "decision''  in  their  verdict. 

*  The  text  of  the  sermon  complained  of  was.  Heb.  xiii.  17;  its  subject  was, '•  The  mu- 
tual duties,  rosDonsibilitic?,  and  privileges  of  minister  and  neo])le".  it  was  a  plain, 
hortatory  discourse,  unmarked  by  any  of  those  hi'^her,  and,  to  the  meek  and  sub- 
missive .spirit,  more  consoling  views,  which,  had  the  sermon  been  recently  written, 
would  surely  have  cliaractcrizcd  it.  Its  negative  character,  in  this  respect,  is  striking; 
and  so  dissatisfied  the  respondent  at  the  dati"  in  question,  that  nothing  but  lack  of  oth- 
er preparation,  suited  to  the  day  and  the  occasion,  could  have  induced  him  to  preach  it. 
His  choice  of  subjects  being  invariably  detei  mined  by  the  services  for  the  day,  he  chose 
rather  to  preach  that  sermon,  in  harmony  with  that  day's  oflices,  unsatisfying  as  it  was 
to  himself,  than  another  that  might  be  out  of  harmony  with  those  ottices. 

The  respondent  was,  perhaps,  never  more  surprised  than  lie  was  when  informed  that 
"said  sermon''  had  been  characterised  as  '-a  Fu.-;eyite  sermon  ;"  and  been  deemed  per- 
sonal, in  its  application,  to  '•  the  ladies  of  the  Sowing  Society."  He  could  hardly  credit 
the  information,  till  the  presentment  came.  Article  8th  left  no  room  for  longer  doubt. 
That  sermon  was  the  basis  of  its  allegations.  The  presenters  having  adopted  the  opinion 
of  two  ladies  on  the  subject,  that  article  had  been  laid  accordingly.  And  that,  be  it 
remembered,  without  the  sermon  ;  for  it  was  neither  had  nor  applied  for  by  them  ! 
Did  they  fear  being  esteemed  disrespectful  to  the  ladies,  if  they  should  seek  to  ^iiow 
something  of  the  sermon,  to  form  opinions  ot  their  own?  Or  did  "the  good  of  tho 
Churcii"  r -quire  that  they  shoidd  charge  without  knowledge,  that  they  should  not  "ex- 
amine the  case .'"' 

+  The  sermon  wa?  re-preached,  and  explanation  made  of  it,— due  notice  haring 
been  previously  given. 

4 


S8 

time  their  complaint ;   and  for  this  they  shall  be  left  to  make  their 
own  answer.     The  respondent  was  always  in  charity  with  th^m ; 
and  was  ready  to  forgive,  and  did  forgive  as  he  hopes  to  be  forgiven.* 
Such  is  the  answer  of  the  respondent  to  Article  VIII. 

♦The  explanation  of  what  has  occurred  with  respect  to  the  "  Epiphany  Sunday" 
Sermon,  is  as  follows  :  A  small  organ  had  been  rented  by  some  persons  interested  in 
the  music  in  Trinity  Church  :  and,  for  reasons  sufficient  lor  theniselvts,  a  portion  of 
"  the  ladies  of  the  Sewing  Society"  liad  supposed  that  ii  had  hcei'  done  by  the  respond- 
ent, and  that  their  Society  was  expected  to  pay  the  rent  of  it.  though  the  respondent 
had  never  exchanged  a  word  with  any  of  theih  on  the  subject.  In  the  meanwhile, 
"the  ladies  of  the  Sewing  Society"  held  a  "Fair,"  which  proved  successful,  and 
put  them  in  possession  of  some  funds.  Those  who  had  interested  themselves  in 
getting  the  organ  into  the  Church,  favored  the  Fair;  and,  as  there  were  not  other 
special  demands  tor  its  receipts  for  parochial  objects,  they  thought  that  payment  for 
the  use  of  the  orgau  to  that  date,  from  those  receipts,  would  be  legitimate  aiid  proper. 
A  bill  sent  to  them  for  the  same,  in  amount  !*20,  it  is  believed,  was  accordingly  diiect- 
ed  to  "the  ladies  of  the  Sewing  Society,"  and  its  payment  asked  by  one  of  tlieir  num- 
ber. "The  ladies  1"  very  promptly  decided  that  the  bill  had  been  .sent  by  the  respond- 
ent, who,  they  said,  had  "put  the'organ  into  the  Church  without  consulting  them  1 — 
and,  therefore,  he  might  pav  for  it ;  they  would  not." 

Supposing  that  they  had  thus  greatly  crossed  the  respondent,  it  was  a  ready  imagi- 
nation, for  such  persons-  under  such  circumstances,  that  he  luubt  so  feel  it  as  to  "  visit 
their  otfence  with  a  rod"  when  opportunity  should  offer. 

Such  was  the  .slate  of  things,  of  which,  however,  the  respondent  was  entirely  una- 
ware, when  "  said  sermon"  was  preached.  The  parson's  feelings,  and  what  were  sup- 
posed to  be  hia  wishes,  the  interests  of  the  parish,  and  the  peace  of  the  Church  had  been 
valued  ;  and  §20  in  money  had  been  deemed  of  more  worth  than  they  all  1 

By  tho.^e  who  know  the  respondent,  the  extent  to  which  that  sum  would  influence 
him"  will  be  at  once  climated.  But  sad  to  say,  it  forms  the  entire  toundatiou  of  the  al- 
legations in  Article  Sth. 

Some  extracts  from  the  testimony  in  the  case,  will  illustrate  these  statements,  and 
perhaps,  throw  some  further  light  upon  the  spirit  with  which  the  respondent  has  been 
brought  into  conllict. 

It  will  here  be  seen  how  the  leaven  of  the  master,  already  noticed,  had  at  this  time 
begun  to  work.  His  wife  was  of  the  Ladies"  Society.  (See  notes  on  pages  3  and  18,  last 
paragraph.) 

The  two  lema'e  "members  of  the  Church"  who  "did  absent  themselves  from  the 
communion,  feeling  scandalized  by  said  sermon,"  were  the  witnesses. 

The  one  testified  thus  :  "The  subject  of  the  sermon  was  obedience,  that  we  must 
obey  Mr.  W.,  and  do  as  he  said.  The  text  was.  I  think,  '  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  you  ;'  or,  •  Be  in  subjection  to  them  that  have  the  iiile  over  you  ;'  that  was  the  im- 
port of  it. 

"  It  was  verv  severe,  and  seemed  to  be  a  very  f«vere  whipping  to  the  ladips  of  the 
Sewing  Society"thal  had  not  done  as  Mr.  W.  wished.  It  seemed  to  lay  down  the  rules 
that  we  had  not  obeyed  him.  and  we  must  obey  him. 

"We  had  not  jjaid  some  orders  that  he  had  drawn  upon  our  Treasury;  we  had  not 
appropriated  our  money  as  he  wished  we  should."  (?) 

"  There  was  a  demand  sent  in  for  us  to  pay,  and  I  for  one  refu.eed  that  the  money  of 
the  Society  should  go  to  pay  that  order.  It' was  an  order,  or  a  note,  orapa_per,  or  a  bill 
that  came  to  us  ;  and,  if  1  understood  it,  and  as  the  other  ladies  understood  it,  il  came 
from  Mr.  W.  to  pav  for  the  use  of  the  organ  in  the  Church,  and  the  platform  on  which 
it  stood.    AVe  refused  to  pav  it.    I  understood  the  organ  had  been  hired  by  Mr.  W. 

"  Mr.  W.,  never  called  upon  us  lor  the  money  :  I  do  not  know  that  his  name  was  to 
the  order.  I  think  there  was  never  an  order"signed  by  Jlr.  W.  at  any  time  for  pay- 
ment of  the  organ  ;  as  I  said  before  3Ir.  W.  never  called  on  us."  (N.  B.  Compare  this 
with  third  narasraph  above.) 

"  The  bill  sent  to  us  was  ?2  for  the  platform,  and  .?18  for  the  organ. 

"  The  ladies  were  not  named  in  that  discourse ;  neither  was  JSlr.  W.,  nor  Mr.  D-,  nor 
appropriation  of  monies.  He  didn't  use  the  words  plain  ;  I  inferred  it;  1  understood 
it ;  I  think  the  sermon  was  jueaclied  expressly  for  us.  He  did  not  mention  the  Sewing 
Society,  but  might  as  well  have  done  so.    It  w  as  perfectly  understood  what  he  meant. 

"Miss said  if  Mr.  AV.  preached  many  such  sermons,  he  would  preach  to  bare 

walls  ;  she  said  it  was  a  verv  ridiculous  sermon. 

"  It  was  called  a  good  Roman  Catholic  sermon.  It  seemed  to  be  his  purpose  to  incul- 
cate in  our  minds  that  we  must  obey  him  in  regard  to  the  Church  and  to  our  religion  ; 
and  as  far  as  he  said  we  could  go,  we  could  go.  He  was  very  severe  on  that  particular 
point,  that  we  must  obey  Jiim  as  Hector  of  the  Church  ;  and  when  we  had  anything^to 
give,  and  he  called  for  it,  we  mu.st  give.  It  was  new  to  me,  the  idea  of  our  obeying  MrTW. 

"He  has  never  spoken  tome  on  the  subject.  He  has  never  called  at  our  house  but 
once  since.  I  said  that  if  he  called  upon  me  during  the  week  following,  and  asked  the 
reasons  why  I  (absented  myself  from  the  communion,)  I  should  think  he  was  a  good 
man  ;  if  not,  I  should  never  go  to  the  communion  again  while  he  was  iu  Trinity  Church"! 

The  other  witness  testified  thus:—"  The  sermon  alluded  to  in  Article  Sth  in  the  pre- 
sentment, kept  me  away  from  the  communion.  I  didn't  think  it  was  a  suitable  sermon 
for  the  occasion  at  all.  It  was  his  manner  as  much  as  anything.  I  didn't  think  that 
he  was  in  a  fit  state  of  mind  to  administer  the  communion  at  that  time.  His  manner 
was  excited,  verv  much  so."    (Query,  when  was  it  not  so  ?) 

"  I  cannot  state  in  what  month  Epiphany  Sunday  is  without  looking  to  the  Almanac. 

•'  I  can  tell  the  text  of  that  sermon,  but  not  the  book,  chapter  or  verse ;  it  was,  "  Sub- 
ject yourselve*  to  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you." 


27 

IX.  With  respect  to  Article  IX.,  the  respondent  submits  as 
follows  : 

It  is  not  true,  that  the  respondent  "  did  publicly  avow,  declare 
and  state  that  he  did  see  the  Bishop  when  and  at  the  time  of  his 
arrival  at  Chicago,  and  added  that  he  would  go  into  the  country." 
But  that  the  respondent  did  go  into  the  country  at  that  time,  is 
true  ;  also,  that  he  "  did  not  call  upon  the  Bishop  during  his  said 
visit,  and  did  not  invite  liim  to  consecrate  Trinity  Church,  or  con- 
firm those  whom  he  had  reported  of  his  Parish  at  the  Convention 
at  Springfield  in  1845,  as  being  ready  for  confirmation." 

The  facts  and  causes  in  relation  to  what  is  here  denied  and  admit- 
ted are  as  follows : 

At  the  visit  of  the  Bishop  to  this  city  in  June  1844,  the  respond- 
ent and  the  Bishop,  as  your  Board  are  aware,  were  thrown  into  a 
position  of  coldness  and  distrust  with  regard  to  each  other.  An 
interview  took  place  between  them  that  was  neither  cordial  nor 
pleasant,  and  which  inspired  feelings  in  the  respondent  of  a  very 
painful  character.*     The  bearing  of  the  Bishop  towards  the  respond- 

"Ho  did  not  in  that  discourse  say  Ladies'  Society ,but  wc  all  understood  what  he  meant. 

"  It  was  a  good  Koman  Catholic  sermon.  The  particular  tenet  advanced  which  I  term 
Roman  Catholic  was,  that  we  must  obey  him  iu  all  things,  as  to  our  religious  duties  ;  he 
had  the  rule  over  us."' 

"If  lie  had  called  to  see  me  it  would  have  been  all  explained.  I  said  going  from 
Church,  we  should  think  Mr.  W.  a  Christian  if  he  called  to  see  why  we  didn't  stay  ;  and 
if  he  did  not,  we  should  nof'l 

Now,  in  view  of  what  is  thus  submitted,  will  any  think  it  a  matter  of  complaint  that 
the  two  ladies,  •' members  of  Trinity  Church"  did  absent  tliemselves  from  the  com- 
munion, as  they  are  allecred  to  have  done  ?  Had  the  Rector  previously  have  known  their 
state  of  mind  and  feeling,  would  he  not  have  been  required  to  insist  that  they  should 
abstain  until  they  should  "  repent  and  amend  ?" 

But,  for  the  conclusion  of  this  matter.  The  sermon  was  produced  in  court,  identified 
and  read  by  the  respondent.  Instantly,  and  as  by  acclamation,  the  court  and  the  coun- 
sel for  the  presenters !  agreed  that  it  was  a  most  proper  sermon — expressing  at  the  same 
time,  the  wish  that  many  more  such  might  be  preached  in  the  Church. 

How  scrupulouslv  the  provisions  of  the  laws  of  the  Church  and  the  laws  of  delicacy 
and  propriety  are  observed  in  respect  to  the  preaching  of  sermons  by  the  '•  live  persons," 
the  presenters  in  tiiis  case,  may  be  gathered  in  part  from  a  fact  which  shall  be  here 
stated  touching  their  chairman. 

From  Advent  to  Easter,  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  to 
open  his  Church  for  a  third  Sunday  service.  During  this  season,  on  the  evening  of  the 
fifth  Sunday  in  Lent,  (March  10th,)  1845,  the  "Rector  of  M.  James'  Church  iu  ChicagOj"' 
did,  in  the  First  Presbyterian  meeting-house,  next  adjoining  Trinity  Church,  in  said 
city,  preach  a  .sermon  from  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  the  Rev  Wm.  Oliver,  Methodist,  having  con- 
ducted the  preliminary  devotions,  said  Trinity  Church  being  open  for  its  usual  services 
at  the  time,  "  the  said  "Rector  well  knowing  the  same.'' 

On  this  occasion,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  neither  introduced  nor  recog- 
nised. 

Kow  Canon  XLV.  of  the  General  Convention  thus  provides: 

"Every  minister  shall,  before  all  sermons  and  lectures,  and  on  all  other  occasions  of 

Eublic  worship,  use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  the  same  is  or  may  be  established 
y  the  authority  of  the  General  Con\ention  of  this  Church.  And  in  performing  said 
Service  no  other  prayer  shall  be  used  than  those  prescribed  by  the  said  book." 

It  may  be  stated  that  St.  James'  Church  is  in  the  northern  part  of  Chicago,  and  that 
the  river  which  separates  it  from  the  south,  forms  a  natural  "  local  boundary"  between 
it  and  the  parish  of  Trinity.  How  far  the  spirit  of  Canon  XXXI.  of  the  General  Con- 
vention of  1844.  on  the  subject  "  Of  the  officiating  of  ministers  within  the  parochial 
cures  of  other  clergymen,"  may  be  here  applicable,  others  may  determine. 

That  the  Rev.  Rector,  on  the  occasion  noticed,  did  cross  the  river,  and  in  a  house  ad- 
jacent to  Trinity  Church,  then  open,  as  he  was  perfectly  aware,  "  officiate  by  preach- 
ing," as  has  been  stated,  i>  perfectlj'  true.  Others  may  decide  on  liis  regard  for  law  ; 
in  this  the  respondent  has  only  to  show  that  his  '•  ways  are  not  equal."  Of  his  activity 
in  serving  to  present  the  respondent  tkricr  (!)  for  alleged  violations  of  law,  while  he  him- 
self could  do,  as  has  been  stated,  there  shall  nothing  be  here  said. 

*  At  this  interview,  for  adhering  to  what  he  believed  to  be  canonically  right,  the  re- 
spondent was  angrily  and  harshly  received  ;  sahited  as  "  the  man  thathad  refused  to 
obey  his  Bishop  ;"  declared  to  have  been  presented,  according  to  a  paper  shown  to 
hiiri,  then  lying  on  the  table  ;  and  informed  that  he  was  thought  to  be  "  ipso  facto  sus- 
pended !" 

On  the  present  trial  the  Bishop  testified,  that  at  the  date  referred  to,  he  "  required 
three  clergymen  at  that  time  in  Chicago,  to  present"  the  respondent ! 

The  testiinony  given  was  this :—"  For  some  reason  or  other,  known  to  himself,  Mr. 


• 


28' 

cnt  during  the  said  visit  was  not  such  as  to  toothe  or  dissipate 
them,  tlioiigh  the  respondent  exerted  liimself  and  did  all  in  his  ]>ow- 
er  to  restore  proper  relation?  between  the  Bishop  :nid  himself.  He 
invited  him  at  that  time  to  lay  the  corner  stone  of  U'rinity  Church, 
and  to  ofiiciate  for  him  ;  asked  him  to  ])artake  of  tlie  hospitalities 
of  his  house,  and  invited  the  members  of  Trinity  I'arish  generally 
to  meet  him  there,  to  pay  him  respect ;  and  sought  to  favor  the  in- 
terests of  the  Bishop  by  enlisting  some  of  his  parishioners  then 
assembled  in  behalf  of  Jubilee  College.*  On  the  eve  of  the  Bish- 
op's leaving,  in  the  cordial  interview  between  the  Bishop  and  him- 
self on  board  the  steamboat,  all  the  wishes  of  the  respondent  seem- 
ed to  be  realized.  Under  the  conviction  that  this  was  the  case,  he 
•wrote  the  letter  of  June  12,  1844,  to  the  Bishop  at  Detroit,  which 
is  on  your  files.  The  letter  of  the  Bishoj)  in  reply  from  Buffalo, 
under  date  of  June  20,  was  not  a  resjjonsc  to  the  letter  the  receipt 
of  which  is  acknowledged,  and  indicated,  as  it  seemed,  to  the  re- 
spondent, a  relapse  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  into  the  state  of  mind 
and  feeling  with  respect  to  the  respondent,  which  had  existed  in 
Chicago  prior  to  the  sieamboat  iiitcr\iew.t  That  the  letter  written 
thus  by  tlie  respondent  Avas  framed  in  (sxact  accordance  with  what 
he  understood  to  be  the  feelings  of  the  Bishop  when  he  parted  with 
him  on  board  the  steamboat,  is  evident  irom  the  re])ly  of  the  Bish- 
op, wherein  he  says,  "  I  Avish  you  had  iuade  my  written  communi- 
cation to  you  while  at  Chicago,  instead  of  the  oral  conve}-8ation  on 
board  the  steamboat  the  subject  matter  of  your  letter. 

I  referred  you  to  that  communication,  and  noAv  repeat  that  ref- 
erence." 

It  -will  be  recollected  that  this  conversation  was  sid)sequent  to 
the  letter  referred  to ;  and  was  thus  naturally  made  the  principal 
basis  of  tlie  respondent's  letter  to  the  Bishop  ;  though  the  respond- 
ent intended  it  to  cover  both,  as  U'ill  appear  from  the  letters  now 
on  your  files  ;  that  it  did  cover  "  the  oral  conversation  on  board  the 
steamboat,"  the  Bishop's  letter,  above  quoted,  clearly,  though  im- 
pliedly, admits.f 

TV.  had  (lisobevpd  my  order?  ns  his  Bishop.  There  were  ihen  three  clerfrymen  in  town, 
to  vhom  I  cave  the  iiil'orrnntion,  ai:d  required  them  to  jireseiit  >lr.  AV.  lor  trial,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  breaking  his  ordination  vows.  'J'hey  did  present  him  as  having  broken 
his  ordination  vows.  It  was  on  this  occasion  tliat  1  iiddre.^.'ed  Mr.  \A'.  with  some  de- 
gree of  earnestness,  thouch  certiiinly  with  affection,  (I)  and  lold  liim  that  the  Court 
would  certainly  go  on,  rfnd  very  likely  he  would  be  i)ut  into  a  state  of  suRpcnsion, 
which  I  shouldVegret.C)''    Sec  Appendix,  M. 

*  The  respondent  at  this  time  thought  Jubilee  College  an  Institution  of  the  Church  in 
Illinois,  llis  mistake  was  not  at  once  discovered.  The  last  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
sought  to  set  forth  the  right  in  respect  to  that  Institution  by  the  adoption  of  the  report 
of  a'-  Committee  to  whom  was  rclerred  so  much  of  the  Bishop's  Address  as  relates  to 
Jubilee  College,"'  and  which  is  in  these  terms,  to  wit : 

"  GnUna.  June  22,  1846. 

"  Tlie  committee  to  which  was  referred  so  much  of  the  Bishop's  tdflress  as  concerns  Jubilee  College, 

"  That  the  clciieal  and  lav-members  of  this  Convention  have  the  most  lively  interest  in  the  prosperity 
of  that  t.'oUcge ;  and  that,  tt"s  thev  disavow  all  claim  to  any  control  over  it,  or  to  any  ripht  to  imiuire  into 
any  act  of  the  Bishon  in  relation  thereto,  as  vested  in  this  Convention :  therefore  thev  tender  to  the  Bi- 
shop most  resj.c  itfullv  Uieir  thanks  lor  the  information  whioh  he  has  voluntarily  laid  before  them  ;  and 
declare  their  enntiuued  c  Lifidenec  that  the  inteutions  of  the  donors  to  taid  College  will  be  carried  into 
effect  by  him  w  isclv  and  faithfullv. 

"  They  unile  in  I'lravir  to  (iod,  that  life  and  health  and  means  may  be  atiorded  to  him  to  conduct  this 
offspring  of  his  last  days  to  greater  \  igor  and  maturity.  ^^  \K  LES  DRESSFR, 

K.   ij.  KKI.L(J(;(i." 
JNO.  r.  AVOHTIUNGTON. 

"Which  report  was,  on  motion,  received,  and  the  sentiments  thereiu  e.\pres8ed  unanimously  adopted.'' 

There  is  a  slight  mistake  here.    The  respoudent  did  not  concur  in  the  above  report ; 
but  moved  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table, 
t  Appendix  K. 


29 

The  next  meeting  of  the  respondent  with  tlie  Bi.shop  was  at  the 
Convention  in  S])ringfield  in  1^45.  At  thut  meeting,  and  during 
the  Convention,  your  Board  iu*e  aw<are  that  llie  Bisiiop  did  not  re- 
ceive tlie  res;'ondent  in  a  cordial  manner,  or  recognize  liim  in  the 
relation  of  his  Presbyter,  as  lie  did  the  other  Presbyters  thenjn-es- 
ent,  and  members  of  the  Convention  ;  tor  tliat  he  alone  of  all  pres- 
ent, was  invited  to  participate  in  the  conduct  of  no  offices  of  the 
Church  during  the  session  of  said  Convention.  June  23d,  a  few 
days  after  the  Convention,  the  respondent  addressed  to  the  Bishop 
a  letter  asking  for  a  reconciliation,  putting  himself  before  the  Bish- 
op for  admonition  and  correction  whereinsoever  he  thought  him  to 
liave  erred,  or  for  a  letter  dismissary  to  another  jurisdiction.  This 
letter,  though  written  in  the  most  humble  and  respectful  manner, 
was  not  deemed  by  the  Bishop  worthy  of  reply.  It  is  upon  your 
files.* 

The  letter  of  July  14th,  1845,  from  the  Bishop,  saying  that  he 
would  conditionally  come  to  Chicago  and  consecrate  Trinity  Church, 
but  saying  nothing  on  the  subject  of  confirmation  in  an}'  way,  was 
the  next  communication  from  the  Bishop  to  the  respondent.  That 
communication  was  upon  a  subject  in  correspondence  lietween  the 
vestry  and  himself,  and  respecting  which  the  vestry  had  caused  him 
to  be  addressed  by  its  Corresponding  Secretary.f 

No  letter  or  notice  of  any  kind  was  afterwards  received  from  the 
Bishop  by  the  respondent  up  to  the  time  of  his  arrival  here.  The 
respondent  had  in  the  mean  time  been  informed,  that  an  appoint- 
ment had  been  made  by  the  Bishop  for  confirmation  in  St.  James' 
Church  in  a  letter  to  Pev.  ]Mr.  Kellogg. 

Soon  after  the  Bishop's  ai-rival  in  Chicago,  Col.  George  Davis 
was  sent  for  by  him,  and  enquired  of  in  regard  to  the  affairs  of 
Trinity  Church,  propei'ly  nnder  the  cognizance  of  the  Rector  ;  and 
he  was  directed  to  obtain  the  infoi-mation  sought  in  respect  to  the 
same,  and  report  to  the  Bishop.  This  course  of  the  Bishop  came 
to  the  resjjondent's  knowledge,  and  seemed  to  him  to  indicate  that 
he  and  the  Bishop  were  again  really  in  the  position  with  respect 
to  each  other,  which  existed  during  the  visit  ot  the  Bishop  in  1844. 
He  thereupon  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Bishop  did  not  in- 
tend to  recognize  him  in  his  official  relation,  either  to  himself  or 
Trinity  Church.  He  felt  that  the  justness  of  that  conclusion  would 
be  determined  either  by  the  Bishop's  calling  on  him,  or  by  his  giving 
him  information  that  he  was  here — which  would  be  an  indication 
that  he  might  call  upon  him,  and  his  otficial  position,  at  least,  be 
recognized.  Up  to  the  hour  for  the  services  in  St.  James'  Church, 
in  the  morning  of  Wednesday,  the  respondent  waited  in  vain  for 
any  token  of  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop. 

The  Bishop  arrived  in  this  city  on  the  evening  of  Monday.  On 
the  morning  of  that  day,  the  respondent  left  a  sick  friend  in  the 
country,  Avith  whom  he  had  spent  the  night  previous — one  of  the 
members  of  a  congregation  for  which  he  officiated  on  Sunday  eve- 
nings dui'ing  the  last  summer — and  returned  to  this  city,  in  order 
to  be  here  and  wait  upon  the  Bishop,  should  he  come,  as  he  had 
heard  he  was  to  do,  and  be  pleased  to  receive  the  respondent. 

*  Appendix,  N.  t  Appendix,  G. 


3« 

Waiting  until  Wednesday  morning,  as  before  stated,  and  construing 
the  course  taken  by  the  Bishop  into  an  intimation  that  he  cared  not 
to  see  the  respondent,  and  feeling  that  he  could  not,  therefore,  for 
reasons  before  stated,  call  upon  him,  he  returned  to  the  friend  in 
the  country,  -whom  he  had  left  on  the  Morning  of  jMonday. 

Had  the  respondent  seen  the  Bishop  at  that  visit  he  could  not 
have  invited  him  "to  consecrate  Trinity  Church,"  because  it  was 
still  in  debt — under  a  debt  whicli  the  vestry  would  not  then  remove  ; 
the  Bishop,  by  his  own  declaration,  having  precluded  an  invita- 
tion to  consecrate  under  such  circumstances ;  "  nor  confirm  those 
whom  he  reported  of  his  parish  at  the  Convention  in  Spring- 
field of  1845,  as  being  ready  for  confirmation ;"  for,  not  hav- 
ing received  any  notice  whatever  from  the  Bishop  that  he  would 
visit  Trinity  Parish  for  the  purpose  of  holding  confirmation, 
he  had  prepared  no  candidates  for  the  reception  of  that  rite. 
Though  several  had  the  moral  qualilication  recpjisite,  and  had 
been  "  ready  and  desirous"  to  be  confirmed,  there  Avould  have  been 
no  time  or  opportunity  to  prepare  them  intellectually,  as  is  contem- 
plated by  the  Church,  and  as  is  necessary  to  such  an  appreciation 
of  the  rite,  as  would  enable  them  duly  to  profit  by  it.* 

Such  is  the  answer  of  tlie  respondent  to  Article  IX. 

•The  respoDflcnt  deems  it  to  be  due  to  liiinsclf  to  state,  tliat,  at  the  date  in  fiuestion, 
Bishop  Chase  was  on  his  way  to  tlie  East,  to  attend  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Potter,  Bish- 
op of  Pennsylvania,  and  that  Ciiicago  was  on  liis  route.  This  may  prevent  the  impres- 
sion that  the  "  visit''  spoken  of  in  Article  9th,  was  an  "  Episcopai  Visitation,"'  accord- 
ing to  the  Canon.    It  was  in  fact  purely  incidental. 

By  what  law  the  res])ondent  was  '•  censurable  in  that  he  did  not  pay  his  respect*  to 
the  Bishop,  and  present  his  class  for  confirmation,"  on  the  occasion  of  such  a  visit,  he 
knows  not.  The  onlv  law  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  "  Of  the  duty  of  ministers  in 
regard  to  Episcopal  Visitations,"  of  wliich  he  is  cognisant,  is  Canon  XXYI.  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  of  1844,  and  which  is  in  these  terms,  to  wit : 

'■  Sec.  1.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  Ministers  to  prepare  young  persons  and  others  for  the 
holy  ordinance  of  Contirmation.  And  on  notice  being  received  from  the  Bishop,  of  his 
intention  to  visit  any  Church,  which  notice  .'-hall  be  at  least  one  month  before  the  in- 
tended Visitation,  the  Minister  shall  give  immediate  notice  to  his  parishioners  individ- 
ually, as  opportunity  may  oilier;  and  also  to  the  congregation  ou  the  tiv.st  occasion  ol 
public  woishi])  after  the  receipt  of  said  notice.  And  he  .«hall  bo  ready  to  present  for 
Contirmation,  such  persons  as  he  shall  think  properly  qualified;  and  shall  deliver  to 
the  Bishop  a  list  of  the  names  of  thoso  confirmed. 

"  Sec  2.  And  at  every  Visitation  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Jlinister,  and  of  the 
Church  wardens  or  vestry,  to  give  information  to  the  Bishop,  of  the  state  of  the  con- 
gregatiouj  under  such  heads  as  shall  have  been  committed  to  them  in  tne  notice  given 
as  atoresaid." 

By  this  law,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  respondent  owed  no  such  duty  to  bis  Bishop  at  his 
"visit"  in  Chicago  in  1845j  as  the  censure  of  the  <,'ourt  would  imijly".  That  "  visit"  was  a 
surprise,  and  not  a  canonically  notified  "  visitation."  Tlie  Canon  devolves  certain  du- 
ties upon  the  minister  of  a  parish  at  an  "  Episcopal  Visitation,"  ivhen  certain  things linve 
been  done  by  the  Bis/iop.  In  this  case,  the  Bishop  had  i)erformed  nothing  on  his  part 
which  was  requisite  to  bind  the  respondent  to  the  perlbrmance  of  any  duties  in  return. 

If  the  censure  of  the  Court  be  not  for  a  violation  of  a  law  of  the  Church,  but  for  a 
breach  of  what  they  supposed  to  bo  courte.sy,  the  resjiondent  would  respectfully  submit, 
whether  it  waspro])erly  within  their  province  to  adjudicate  on  that  point! 

What  has  been  stated  in  the  "  Answer"  of  the  bearing  of  the  Bishop  towards  the  re- 
spondent, notwithstanding  repeated  efforts  on  his  part  and  that  of  his  parishioners  to 
bring  about  a  different  state  of  things,  may  be  thought  to  furnish  at  lea.st  some  ground 
to  justify  the  course  of  the  respondent.  Such  a  conviction  will  not  be  weakened  by  the 
following,  in  support  of  the  Answer,  and  illustrative  of  the  Bishop. 

The  matter  is  m  the  testimony  of  the  Bishop  thus,  in  his  cross-examination  : 

"  It  was  my  pleasure,  soon  after  ray  arrival,  to  send  for  3Ir.  Davis,  and  because  I 
wished  to  enquire  of  him  of  the  state  and  condition  of  Trinity  Church  in  respect  to 
Mr.  W."  [It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  at  this  date  Trinity  Church  was  united  and 
prosperous,  of  which  the  Bishop  had  information;  1st,  through  the  Corresponding  Sec- 
retary of  the  Vestry,  about  three  months  previously  ;  2d,  through  the  Rectorj  in  his  re- 
port to  the  Bishop'at  Convention  in  the  month  previous.  Of  course,  the  object  of  the 
Bishop  was  not  to  work  disaffection  !] 

"  CouNSEi.— Is  it  usual  and  respectful  for  the  Bishop,  when  he  visits  a  parish  in  his 
Diocese,  to  send  for  a  lavman  to  enquire  into  the  situation  of  the  Church,  instead  of 
sending  tor  the  Rector  of  the  Church  ? 

"  Bishop.— No,  where  the  Rector  is  supposed  to  act  correctly  himself;  but  in  the  situ- 


31 

X.  With  respect  to  Article  X,,  the  respondent  admits,  th.it  he  did 
*'  in  the  store  of  Jacob  Rnssell  have  mixed  for  liim  some  brandy 
and  sugar,"  as  alleged  therein,  being  unwell,  which  he  did  give  at 
the  time"  as  an  excuse,"  and  that  he  was  probably  in  "  high  spir- 
its"— for  that  he  is  very  rarely  deprei^sed  whether  sick  or  well. 
And  he  does  not  deny,  that  on  being  told  "  that  a  certain  man,  his 
name  being  mentioned,"  to  wit,  A.  C.  Beclcer,  "  formerly  a  friend 
of  the  respondent,  but  then  an  enemy,  was  carried  home  drunk 
a  few  evenings  previous  to  this  time,  from  the  Lake  House,  a  ho- 
tel in  this  city,  did  instantly  reply,  that  he  was  glad  of  it,"  and  that 
he  probably  laughed  "  at  the  same  time,"  stating,  in  explanation, 
that  he  Avas  glad  "  he  had  such  good  friends  to  carry  him  home," 
although  he  has  no  recollection  of  these  circumstances. 

To  understand  the  transaction  here  alleged  to  have  occurred,  it 
is  only  necessary  to  recal  the  fact  that  the  respondent  had  repelled 
said  Becker  from  the  communion  some  time  previously  for  drunk- 
enness, among  other  things,  and  that  he  had  been  censured  for  so 

ation  I  was  then,  1  could  not  otherwise  do.  He  had  paid  great  disrespect  to  my  com- 
mands. He  had  behaved,  in  my  opinion,  very  di.srespsctful  to  his  Bisliop  Having  no 
visit  from  any  in  tlie  parish.  I  tlioii -{ht  it  was  a  concerted  plan  to  pay  me  disrespect. 

"  Cou.NSEL.— In  what  manner  and  on  ■\\hat  occasion  did  Mr.  W.  or  his  parishioners 
show  great  disrespect  to  the  Bishop  ? 

"  BisHoV. — By  not  meeting  me  according  to  appointment ;"  (? — thcra  was  no  appoint- 
ment,— see  Answer  and  references  ;)  '•  hy  not  receiving  me,  and  spealcing  friendly  with 
me,  as  is  always  expected  between  a  Church  and  its  Bishop ;  I  mean  at  the  time  of  my 
arrival  and  during  my  stay  here. 

"Counsel.— Did'you  expect,  after  you  had  sent  for  a  layman  to  enquire  into  the  affairs 
of  Mr.  W.'s  Church,  that  he  would  have  called  upon  you  .' 

"  Bishop. — Most  certainly  ;  it  was  always  his  duty  to  call  upon  me.  I  expected  him  to 
come.    My  bosom  was  always  open  towards  him."  (1) 

Now  for  the  fashion  of  the  Bishop's  "open  bosom"  towards  the  respondent,  at  this 
time.  It  is  furnished  in  a  statement  by  Col.  Davis,  the  parishioner  of  the  respondent 
who  was  sent  for  by  the  Bishop. 

He  says,  "  after  some  preliminary  conversation  between  myself  and  the  Bishop  in  re- 
lation to  Trinity  Church,  I  enquired  of  the  Bishop  what  Mr.  W.  could  do  that  would 
promote  a  good  understaudiag  between  them.  Whereupon  he  went  into  a  desultory 
accusation  of  Mr.  W.,  stating  that  he  had  no  right-mindedness  ;  that  he  was  a  piece  of 
Jesuitical  twistitication  ;  that  ho  had  promised  on  board  the  boat  to  write  him  a  peniten- 
tialletter,  instead  of  which  he  had  sent  him  the  90th  tract ;"  (see  the  letter,  Appendix 
K  ;)  "  that  he  was  a  Benjamin  T.  man,"  &c.,  &c. 

Such  was  the  Bishop's  "  open  bosom''  towards  the  respondent !  The  same  as  it  was  in 
1844,  when  he  sent  to  the  respondent's  Vestry  that  he  should  officiate  for  Trinity  con- 

fregation  on  the  Sunday  then  following,  (June  2,)  and  bring  with  him  a  presbyter,  the 
lev.  Kector  of  St.  James'  Church,  Mr.  Kellogg  1  to  read  the  services,  and  that  Mr. 
Walker  should  be  told  to  take  his  seat  among  the  congregation;  and  when,  on  the 
Sunday  subsequent  to  that,  (June  9,)  he  did  take  the  place  of  the  respondent  over  his  peo- 
ple, by  assuming  to  officiate  in  the  afternoon's  services,  having  sent  to  the  respondent  to 
take  his  seat  among  the  congregation,  and  told  him  that  he  thought  he  would  not  re- 
cognise him  by  officiating  with  him  ;that  he  thought  him  ipso  fano  suspended  I  So  accu- 
sing, condemning,  and  suspending,  by  displacing  from  his  rightful  position,  the  respon- 
dent, without  a  fiearing,  a  trial,  or  a  warning  1 

If  these  things  were  not  too  bad  to  be  done,  they  are  not  too  bad  to  be  told. 

Duty  requires  the  respondent  to  speak  the  truth  plainly,  that  the  difiiculties  of  his 
position  in  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  may  be  understood,  and  a  key  furnished  to  his  prc- 
sentmehts  and  trial. 

The  Utica  Gospel  Blessenger,  of  Nov.  20,  furnishes  the  following,  embracing  prin- 
ciples which  are  quite  appropos  to  the  points  now  considered,  Irom  authorities  that  can- 
not be  suspected  : — 

"  We  cut  the  following  from  the  Witne.ss  of  the  6th  : 

"  With  the  editors  of  tlie  Recorder  we  fully  agree,  that  no  '  bishop  has  a  right  to  en- 
join any  t/iing  upon  his  clergy,  respecting  matters  wiiich  the  church  has  chosen  to  leave 
to  their  own  decision.' 

"  As  successors  of  the  a])0stles,  they  have  sole  authority  in  the  exercise  of  certain 
functions  in  the  Church  ;  and  as  bishops  of  particular  dioceses,  they  have  ceitain  con- 
ventional rights  and  powers,  which  are  matters  regulated  by  legislation,  and  are  there- 
fore clearly  ^lelined;  beyond  these,  they  have  no  right  whatever  to  go  in  theexeicise 
of  assumed  authority.  Their  privileges  and  duties,  like  those  of  deacons  and  presbyters, 
are  limited,  and  should  be  fully  understood  by  both  clergy  and  laity,  that  they  may  be 
sustained  to  the  very  utmost,  so  long  as  they  exercise  their  powers  within  apostolical 
and  canonical  bounds,  and  promptly  reeisted  when  they  transcend  their  legitimate  au- 
thority." 


32 

doing  by  some  who  were  associatetl  with  ]Mr.  Becker.*  "Whi.-n  in- 
formed, therefore,  that  those  same  persons,  who  hail  so  pursued  tlie 
respondent,  had  now  the  evidence  thus  carried  liome  to  them  tliat 
the  course  of  the  respondent  in  relation  to  said  Becker  was  right, 
and  he  came  to  know  that  he  must  now  be  justified  even  by  those 
who  had  before  censured  him,  he  very  Hkely  laughed  and  remark- 
ed, he  was  glad  of  it;  glad,  not  that  a  fellow-creature  was  thus  de- 
based ;  but,  being  so,  that  his  '•  good  friends"  had  such  evidence  of 
it  as  was  furnished  them,  when  they  were  called  ''  to  carry  him 
home."t 

Such  is  the  answer  of  the  respondent  to  Article  X.. — the  last 
Article  sought  to  be  maintained  in  the  presentment  of  1846. 

*  Appendix,  M. 

tTlife  author  of  the  charges,  in  Article  10th  of  the  rresentment,  was  the  sole  witness 
called  to  substaiiTiate  them.  The  dccipion  of  the  Conrt  renders  proi)er  the  introduction 
of  his  testimony  here,  that  the  means  may  be  all'orded  for  the  formation  of  ojunion  as  to 
kow  "  far-'  the  respondent  "  exhibited  an  uncliristian  temper,"'  (sec  Verdict.)  on  the  oc- 
casion referi-ed  to. 

On  taking  the  stand,  the  witness  remarked,  in  a  manner  evincinj;  with  sufliclent 
clearness  his  feelings  towards  the  responder.t  and  his  interest  in  (he  case,  "  I  am  very 
glad  to  have  this  opportunity  to  tell  wliat  I  know  ;"  and  tlien  proceeded  as  follows  :  — 

"I  called  at  tlie  store  of  ^Ir.  Kussell  o-.irly  in  Alay,  1845,  possibly  .Septendx-r.  about 
dark,  and  found  Mr.  K.  and  3Ir.  W.  in  conversation  behind  the  counter.  I  think  there 
■was  a  clerk  in  the  store — one  other  person.  ,^Ir.  W.  was  having  some  hrainly  and  su- 
gar mixed  for  him.  Mr.  W.  made  the  "eiuark  soon  after  I  went  in,  that  he  was  un- 
well, or  something  of  that  sort,  and  hoped  that  I,  or  we,  would  not  circulate  any  bad 
stories  about  him  on  account  of  his  taking  some  brandy  and  sugar. 

"  Mr.  R.  observed  to  Mr.  NV.  that  he  understood  a  friend  of  his  was  carried  home 
drunk  from  the  L.ake  House  a  few  evenings  previous ;  Mr.  Hecker,  I  think  he  said.  >lr. 
AV.  instantly  replied,  in  a  very  earnest  manner,  that  lie  was  •  glad  of  it,'  suiting  the  ac- 
tion to  the  word.  After  indulging  in  a  very  hearty  laugh,  he  instantly  changed  his 
manner,  and  said, '  that  is  to  say,  that  he  "had  such  very  good  friends  to  carry  him 
home.' 

"  Mr.  W.'s  manner  during  the  whole  time,  except  when  he  altered  his  manner,  was 
one  of  extreme  Icvitv. 

"  I  think  I  never  saw  him  look  better  than  he  did  at  that  time.  He  appeared  to  be  in 
very  high  spirits. 

"  I  never  repeated  this  conversation,  except  to  two  persons  in  private,  nearly  a  year 
after. 

"  Mr.  Eussell's  store  was  not  a  place  where  liipior  was  sold  by  the  glass  to  be  drank 
there. 

"Mr.  R.  was,  I  believe,  a  Vestryman  of  Mr.  AV.'s  church.  Jlr.  AV.  stopped,  when  he 
first  came  here,  awhile  at  a  public  hotel  kept  by  ilr.  Russell ;  had  been  boarding  at  his 
house  a  year  or  a  vear  and  a  half  previous  to  tliat  time. 

"After  the  conversation  at  3Ir.  Russell's  about  liec!-er.  I  did  take  a  pew  in,  and,  till 
last  April,  attend  Mr.  W.'s  church,  on  account  of  my  family." 

In  answer  to  the  questions,  •■  Are  you  one  of  the  instigators  of  this  propecntion  ?  Did 
you  write  a  letter  to  the  lM.«hop  on  the  subject .'  Or,  have  you  contributed  any  money 
or  means  for  carrying  it  on.  or  obligated  vourself  to  do  so  .'"  the  reply  was: 

"  I  signed  a  letter  to  the  IMshop  with  others,'"  (see  Rrcfaee,  and  page  .3,  note,)  "  asking 
that  Mr.  W.  might  be  tried  on  the  charjes  preferred  against  him  bv  St.  J-.imes'  Church. 
In  that  letter  the  signers  pronii.'ed  the  Bishop  that  we  wo\iId  pay  the  expenses  in  carry- 
ing on  the  trial,  (1)  and  that  we  wished  to  prefer  charges  against  Mr.  '\V."(1) 

"  I  think  it  likely  there  was  a  pledge  given  that  money  should  be  contributed  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  tile  second  trial ;  don't  recollect  particularly." 

"  I  have  sent  A'iO  to  the  Rishon  to  pav  the  expen.ses  of  Mr.  Worthnigton."'  (the  Coun- 
sel employed  by  the  Bishop  to  prosecute,)  -'to  (ialena.  Mr.  Arnold  culled  on  me  to 
know  who  was  going  to  indemnify  him  as  commissary.  I  gave  him  !i?20,  and  told  him 
that  he  mu.st  consider  that  as  an  evidence  that  he  was  not  expected  to  labor  for  noth- 
ing. Have  given  in  all  SSO  ;  expect  to  give  more  if  necessary.  Have  made  no  agree- 
ment with  the  Counsel,"  (Mr.  A.)  "  but  assured  him  that  we  expected  to  pay  him  for  hi.i 
labor."  (3Ir.  "\V.  was  l.st  Counsel  employed  by  the  Bishop ;  Mr.  A.  2d,  employed  by  tho 
persons  referred  to  bv  the  witness.) 

"  I  do  hot  feel  indifTerent  as  to  the  result  of  this  trial ;  I  think  Mr.  "NV.  a  very  bad  man, 
and  think  he  should  be  stopped  jn-eaching. 

"  I  am  not  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church ;  have  never  been  bap- 
tized ;  was  brought  up  among  the  Quakers." 

The  sister  of  this  witness  is  the  wife  of  the  man  noticed  on  page  18,  in  last  two  para- 
graphs of  the  note;  in  Preface;  in  note  on  page  .'j;  and  elsewhere,  as  the  originator  and 
Fomenter  of  discontent  with  respect  to  the  respondent ;  and  the  sister  of  that  man  is 
the  wife  of  this  witness  !  That  the  witness  should  sympathise  with  his  brother-in-law, 
and  act  with  him  against  the  respondent,  is  no  marvel.  That  brother-in-law  n-ns  thr. 
author  of  the  letter  to  the  Bishop  noticed  in  the  testimony  ;  was  one  of  its  signers,  and 
wasbv  the  Bishop,  in  return,  appointed  one  of  the  '-five  persons''  to  present  I 

In  liii  deposition  before  the  Commiisary;  thio  witness  tcitiliert  of  that  perion  as  fol- 


33 

[XI.  With  respect  to  Article  XL,  it  may  be  proper  here  to 
state,  that  the  occurrence  on  which  it  is  founded  was  simply  a  mis- 
understanding in  relation  to  a  contract,  in  which  each  party  held 
his  own  vicAvs,  and  thus  impliedly  reflected  on  the  other.  The 
matter  was  almost  instantly  amicably  adjusted ;  and  the  relation 
of  the  parties  has  in  no  degree  been  interfered  with  by  the  occur- 
rence. How  the  mole-hill  became  a  mountain  would,  under  other 
circumstances  than  those  which  have  attended  the  presentment  of 
the  respondent,  be  inexplicable.] 

That  the  foregoing  answers  contain  a  full  and  complete  state- 
ment of  the  facts  to  Avhich  the  several  Articles  in  the  presentment 
of  1846  relate,  so  far  as  tliose  facts  rest  in  the  memory  of  this  re- 
spondent, is  solemnly  affirmed. 

In  full  view  of  his  responsibilities,  the  respondent  here,  in  the 
presence  of  Almighty  God,  of  the  angels  who  may  inhabit  these 
courts,  and  of  the  witnesses  now  present,  declares,  that  in  so  far  as 
fault  unexplained  is  involved  in  the  allegations  against  him,  that 
fault  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  head  and  not  to  the  heart. 

At  the  same  time,  the  respondent  acknowledges,  that  he  has  often 
and  again  "  erred  and  strayed  from  God's  ways ;"  that  he  has  re- 
peatedly "  left  undone  the  things  he  ought  to  have  done,  and  done 
the  things  he  ought  not  to  have  done ;"  that  he  has  in  many  ways 
"  offended  against  God's  holy  laws ;"  in  short,  that  there  is  "  no 
spiritual  health  in  him."  But,  thanks  be  to  God,  "  there  is  mercy 
with  Him."     He  is  "  not  extreme  to  mark  what  is  done  amiss." 

lows : — "  He,  (Sherwood,)  with  others,  signed  the  letter  to  the  Bishop  calling  for  this 
trial,  and  saying  in  that  letter  that  he,  with  the  others,  would  pay  the  expenses  of  the 
trial.  He  gave  something  towards  the  expenses  of  those  ministers  that  were  here,"  (hia 
associate  presenters.) 

Now  this  is  the  witness  and  thi' thetestimonv  that  servfid  for  the  decision  of  the  Court 
on  Article  10th  ;  and  this,  too,  witli  the  adili'ioiial  qunlit'ying  particular,  that  3Ir.  Rus- 
sel  himself  testified, — ■'  I  have  no  recollection  of  3Ir.  W.  ever  drinking  any  thing  at  my 
store." 

The  facts  in  connection  with  the  "brandy  and  sugar"  are  those,  to  wit :  The  respond- 
ent had  been  some  days  ill  from  disordered  stomach  and  bowels  ;  and  during  the  time 
had  tried  several  si.mple  medicinal  assents  without  effect.  On  the  occasion  referred  to, 
he  was  on  his  way  to  his  house,  which  led  him  to  pass  Mr.  Kussell's  store  ;  Mr.  R.  wa8 
standinar  in  the  store  door  ;  and  as  the  respondent  came  up,  he  accosted  him,  and  said, 
"  How  do  you  do?"  The  reply  was,  '-Not  well,"  and  the  particular  ailment  was  named  ; 
at  the  same  time  Mr.  K.  was  asked  if  he  could  not  furnish  the  respondent  some  brandy 
and  sugar,  which  he  said  he  would  like  to  try,  for  that  he  had  none  at  home.  While 
the  brandy  and  suc;ar  was  preparinj;,  Mr.  Collins,  the  above  witness,  cam'!  in,  to  whom 
the  respondent  mentioned  his  illness,  and  what  he  proposed  to  trv,  at  the  same  time 
paying  jocosely  what  the  witness  alleges.  Collins  was  at  that  time  friendly  ;  hence  the 
respondent  was  somewhat  unreserved  and  familiar  in  his  presence. 

Of  the  other  allegations  in  the  Article,  no  more  can  be  said  than  is  given  in  the  An- 
swer. 

So  unimportant  were  the  occurrences  at  Russell 's  deemed  at  the  time,that  they  made  no 
impression  whatever  on  the  mind  or  memory  of  Mr.  R.  himself;  nor  did  the  witness  at- 
tach importance  to  them  -'till  nearly  a  year  after  I"  when,  after  the  defeat  at  the  Easter 
election,  charges  were  to  be  preferred  against  Mr.  W. 

The  "  high  spirits"  of  the  re.^poudent  then,  when  Collins  had  become  enlisted  against 
him,  came  to  be  deemed  ''  levity  ;"  his  '•  having  mixed  some  brandy  and  sugar"— (that 
it  was  drank  is  not  charged .') — to  he  taken  medicinally  for  nn  illness  for  which  it  is  con- 
fessedly an  appropriate  remedy,  at  the  store  of  his  Vestryman,  whose  house  had  been 
for  some  time  hishome,  and  telling  of  the  matter  himself,  but  for  which  it  need  not 
have  been  known,  were  now,  all  too  obviously,  sin  ;  and  the  remark,  certainly  not  un- 
natural under  the  circumstances,  (see  Appendix,  M,)  and  by  no  means  necessarily  indi- 
cative of  improper  feeling  in  the  breast  of  the  respondent,  had  come  to  be  considered 
immoral — a  •■'  scandal  and  injury  to  the  Church  1" 

The  hostility  of  the  witness  indicated  by  the  letter  to  the  Bishop,  the  money  he  has 
eiven,  and  his  readiness  still  to  give,  with  his  own  declaration  that  he  was  "  not  indif- 
ferent as  to  the  result  of  the  trial,"  and  his  opinion  of  the  respondent,  furnish  the  key  to 
the  change  which  came  over  his  mental  vision  in  resre ct  to  the  moral  qualities  of  what 
fook  place  at  Eussell's  store  Tt  seems  strange  that  the  Court  did  not  see,  or  seeing,  did 
not  apply  it. 

5 


34 

"  He  is  gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great  kind- 
ness," as  He  is  "  faithful  and  just"  to  forgive,  according  to  His 
promises  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  Still,  with  respect  to  the  alle- 
gations against  the  respondent,  to  which  answers  have  been  made, 
the  declaration  is  true — "  not  guilty  in  the  form  and  manner  sta- 
ted ;" — not  guilty  in  intention  at  all  is  equally  true. 

To  you.  Rev.  Brethren,  the  respondent  now  commits  his  case. 
To  you,  under  God,  he  is  to  look  for  a  verdict  upon  it,  which  will 
have  a  vastly  controlling  influence,  for  his  weal  or  his  wo.  Your 
power,  with  respect  to  him,  may  be  a  savor  of  life  or  of  death. 
Oh,  may  you  be  saved  from  the  fearful  error  of  causelessly  breaking 
the  bruised  reed  ! 

May  the  Almighty  Spirit,  which  was  sent  to  the  holy  Apostles 
to  guide  them  into  all  truth,  be  poured  upon  you,  to  save  you  from 
all  error,  ignorance,  pride  and  prejudice,  and  be  to  you  a  spirit  of 
vdsdom  and  understanding,  that  you  may  have  a  right  judgment  in 
all  the  matters  before  you  pertaining  to  this  respondent !  Breth- 
ren, realize  I  pray  you,  the  responsibility  resting  upon  you  with 
respect  to  this  case,  and  seek  of  God  His  grace  to  enable  you  so  to 
quit  yourselves  as  shall  find  favor  for  you  in  the  Church  here,  and 
of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  both  here  and  hereafter.  Seek 
to  render  such  a  judgment  as  shall  meet  with  approval  when  we 
shall  all  finally  be  gathered  before  the  Son  of  Man,  sitting  as  Judge, 
and  have  rendered  unto  us  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall 
be.  In  full  confidence  in  the  fairness  and  impartiality  with  which 
you  will  make  up  your  final  estimate  on  his  case,  the  respondent 
will  wait  in  patience,  under  God,  for  your  verdict.  Asking  you 
to  remember  that  an  error  against  him  will  be  irretrievably  fatal, 
and  that  the  most  vital  interests  of  a  hopeful  branch  of  the  Church, 
not  less  than  those  of  the  respondent  are  at  stake,  the  case  is  now 
submitted, — the  assurance  being  added,  that  the  respondent  will 
continue  instant  in  prayer  for  you,  that  you  may  be  saved  from  all 
error.  Faithfully  and  affectionately. 

Your  brother  in  the  Church, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 
Chicago,  September  9,  1846.  " 

A  brief  history  will  furnish  the  key  to  this  trial. 

Trinity  Church  was  united,  and,  for  an  infant  congregation,  in  the  enjoj;ment  of  an 
almost  unexampled  prosperity,  till  September  1845.  The  first  schism  in  its  councils 
took  place  in  that  month.  S.  J.  Sherwood,  W^arden,  was  the  party  in  it.  Feeling  him- 
self to  have  been  crossed  in  effecting  the  diversion  to  other  jiurposes  than  those  for 
which  they  had  been  raised,  certain  moneys  that  had  been  collected,  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  respondent  and  his  friends,  for  a  specific  object  connected  with 
Trinity  Church  edifice,  he  became  indignant  at  the  respondent,  and  sent  him  his  re- 
signation ;  and  this,  notwithstanding  the  following  opiniim  of  the  Bishop,  by  which 
the  respondent  would  have  been  sustained,  had  Sherwood's  supposition  and  allegation 
been  true: — "The  right  of  donors  to  designate  the  object  and  conditions  of  their  do- 
nations is  a  principle  in  law  of  the  most  sacred  character.  I  know  of  no  authority  to 
set  this  aside,  either  in  Church  or  State.  It  is  above  Canon  Law,  and  the  Law  ot  Le- 
gislatures ;  and  has  been  so  determined  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall." 

In  reference  to  the  same,  Sherwood  testified  on  the  trial  as  follows : — 

"  The  day  I  resigned  my  office  as  Warden,  and  immediately  after,  I  met  Mr.  W.  and 
told  him  that  I  was  satisfied  that  he  was  at  the  bottom  of  it ;  and  if  that  was  to  be  his 
course  of  proceeding,  I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  Church  af- 
fairs ;  and  that  I  had  sent  him  my  resignation I  spoke  in  an  animated 

manner  to  Mr.  W.,  and  expressed  my  indignation 1  told  him  his  conduct 

•was  outrageous." 

The  effect  of  Sherwood's  treatment  on  the  respondent  at  this  interview,  is  in  the  tes- 
timony of  a  witness  on  the  trial,  thus  : 

"  While  passing  up  Lake  street,  and  when  opposite  Mr.  Sherwood's  store,  Mr.  Walker 


35 

came  across  the  street  and  met  me,  apuarc-ntly  in  much  aflliction,  with  tears  in  his  eyes. 
He  stated  to  me  that  he  had  been  insulted  anil  abused ;  and  that  the  only  way  for  him 
to  secure  his  own  peace  ot'miud  was  to  resign. " 

The  truth  is,  the  respondent  had  no  heart  for  the  struggle  which  he  clearly  foresaw 
Sherwood's  displeasure  would  cost  him,  should  he  retain  his  position.  Peculiar  asso- 
ciations and  circumstances  seemed  to  have  given  Sherwood  a  power  in  Trinity  Church 
against  which,  it  was  believed,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  stand.  The  respondent  was 
tiierefore  disposed  at  once  to  sever  the  fie  between  him  and  that  Church,  and  so  escape 
the  conflict.    His  friends  remonstrated,  and  he  yielded  to  their  wishes. 

"  Previous  to  that  time,"  testified  Sherwood,  "the  intercourse  between  myself  and 

Mr.  W.  liad  been  of  a  friendly  character I  don't  remember  that  there  had 

been  any  didiculty  in  the  Society  previously. 

"  Since  that  time,  I  have  been  opposed  to  Mr.  W..  and  have  expressed  myself  as  op- 
posed to  him.  I  had  no  other  motive  than  the  good  of  the  Church.  I  did  not  think  he 
did  right.  My  only  object  in  opposinj;  him  was,  that  there  might  be  a  change  in  the 
ministry  in  this  Church ;  that  we  might  get  back  again,  and  enjoy  its  privileges." 
For,  he  might  have  added,  at  the  date  in  question,  1  ceased  my  attendance  on  the 
Holy  Communion,  and  almost  entirely  on  the  services  in  Trinity  Church.  This  was  his 
testimony  in  effect. 

The  opposition  of  Sherwood  led  him  thenceforward  to  employ  himself,  with  a  zeal 
and  assiduity  which  may  be  inferred  from  this  statement,  in  manufacturing  a  senti- 
ment among  the  members  of  the  congregation  corresjjonding  with  his  own  ;  "  doing 
nothing  further,''  in  this  way,  however,  w  as  his  testimony,  "  tlian  to  state  to  my  friends 
and  to  others  interested  in  the  Churcii,  ray  opinion  of  Mr.  "W".  and  his  conduct,  and 
state  to  them  what  were  the  facts  in  the  case."  (1) 

Notwithstanding  this  adverse  iuflupnce,  the  then  Treasurer,  now  an  opponent,  testi- 
fied, that  "  the  revenues  of  Trinity  Church  were  greater  during  the  last  two  quarters  of 
the  year,"  and  that  '•  there  was  a  gradual  increase  in  the  congregation  up  to  Easter 
last." 

In  the  deposition  of  another  witness  is  the  following,  on  the  same  subject,  from  the 
Junior  Warden,  who  subsequently  became  "  a  Sherwood  man." 

"  I  had  a  conversation  with  him,"  said  the  witness,  "  some  time  in  January  or  Febru- 
ary last," — two  months  before  Easter.  "  I  remarked  to  him  that  I  thought  they  were 
trying  to  get  up  some  disturbances  against  Mr.  W.  He  remarked  that  he  had  not  heard 
any  thing  of  the  kind,  and  that  he  should  be  sorry  to  have  any  disturbances ;  be  thought 
the  Church  was  getting  along  finely,  and  he  was  not  aware  that  there  was  any  thing 
against  Mr.  AV." 

This  may  serve  to  show  that  an  issue  foreign  to  the  real  "good  of  the  Church"  had 
been  made  by  Sherwood. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  down  to  Tuesday,  March  3d.  In  the  course  of  the  morn- 
ing of  that  day,  the  respondent  found  that  Sherwood  had  been  active  in  calling  upon 
members  of  tlie  Vestry,  himself  not  of  the  Board,  and  urging  them  to  hold  their  regular 
meetingthat  afternoon,  and  pass  a  resolution  that  had  been  drawn  up  requesting  the 
respondent  to  resign.  The  trap  thus  set,  and  all  ready  in  a  few  hours  to  be  sprung,  was 
mercifully  disclosed.  But  unwilling  now,  as  before,  to  engage  in  any  struggle  in  con- 
nection with  the  Church,  having  a  primary  reference  to  himself,  the  respondent  said  to 
his  friends  that  he  should  resign  ;  though  he  would  not  be  driven  by  the  course  an  op 
position  had  proposed.  A  major  part  of  the  Vestry,  friendly  to  the  respondent,  decided 
that  they  would  not  attend  the  meeting  for  that  day,  unless  the  respondent  should  him- 
.self  call  them  together.  At  this  time,  and  under  these  circumstances,  the  forged  notice 
issued. 

Sherwood,  from  this  time  became  open,  unscrupulous  and  violent.  Being  informed 
that  such  was  the  fact  with  respect  to  him,  the  respondent  determined  to  seek  an  early 
interview  with  him,  and,  by  explanation,  endeavor  to  allay  his  irritation.  Opportunity 
soon  offered.  The  testimony  of  a  witness  as  to  what  occurred  at  the  interview  on  the 
evening  of  March  3d,  was  as  follows : — 

"Mr.  Walker,  Mr.  W.  Stuart,  and  Mr  W.  H.  Adams,  of  the  P.  O.,"  (not  the  Junior 
Warden  of  the  same  name,)  '■  and  myself,  met  Mr.  Sherwood  on  Clarke  street,  near  the 
Post  Office.  Mr.  W.  stopped  Mr.  S.  and  offered  him  his  hand,  which  he  did  not  take  ; 
and  said  to  him  (Sherwood)  that  he  wished  to  talk  about  the  Vestry  meeting.  Mr.  S., 
in  a  very  angry,  exciting,  and  insulting  manner,  said,  '  I  will  hear  nothing  from  you. 
I  consider  you  a  tricky  and  dishonest  man.'  Mr.  W.  then  attempted  to  expostulate 
with  him.  Mr.  S.  replied, '  Mr.  W.,  I  wish  to  hear  nothing  from  you  ;  I  will  not  hear 
it ;'  and  turned  on  his  heel  and  left  us." 

Foreseeing  that  the  long-threatened  issue  now  open  was  inevitable,  if  the  respondent 
retained  his  position  ;  against  tlie  wishes  of  his  friends,  he  addressed  the  following  let- 
ter to  the  Bishop : — 

"  Chicago,  March  3, 1846. 
"  Right  Reverend  and  Dear  Sir  : 

"Please  oblige  me  with  your  consent  to  my  resigning  the  Rectorship  of  Trinity 
Church  in  this  city,  and  a  letter  dimissory  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Et.  Kev.  Bishop 
Kemper. 

"My  conviction  is  that  the  interests  of  Trinity  Church  will  be  subserved  by  the 
change  contemplated,  while  a  sphere  of  at  least  equal  usefulness  may  be  opened  to  me. 
"  Yours  faithfully, 

•  W.  F.  WALKEE. 
"  To  the  Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Illinois  " 

To  this  letter  the  following  reply  was  received  March  16th. 


36 

"  To  tht  Rtv.  W.  F.  Walkee,  Rfctor  of  Tiiaity  Church,  Chicago.  111. 

"  Jldile£,  March  10, 1848 
"  Rev.  Sir— 
"  I  received  }'efiterda5'  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant. 

"  You  say, 'Please  Dblige  me  with  your  consent  to  my  resigning  the  Bectorship  of 
Trinity  Church  in  this  city." 
"  Mr.  Walker  :  I  consider  this  request  as  out  of  place. 

"  I  cannot  give  my  consent  to  a  thing  which,  on  examination,  I  may  think  ought  not 
to  take  place. 

"  For  this  reason  I  say  :  When  I  shall  have  been  informed  that  you  h:ive  resigned, 
and  the  Wardens  and  Vestry  shall  have  accepted  your  resignation,"  both  having  given 
their  reasons,  I  shall  think  it  my  duty  to  consider'the  matter,  and  give  or  withhofd  my 
consent,  as  the  case  may  appear  to  require. 

"  It  seems  proper  that  the  Yastry  of  Trinity  Church,  Chicago,  should  be  apprised  of 
your  movements ;— 1  therefore  shall  send  them  a  copy  of  this  letter. 
"  1  am  your  friend  and  servant  iu  Christ, 

"  PHILA^'DER  CHASE, 

"  Bishop  of  Illinois." 

In  the  mean  time,  the  friends  of  the  respondent  rallied,  and  insisted  that  he  should 
not  resign,  certifyiiig  to  him  that  a  very  large  majority  of  the  congregation  and  com- 
municants were  in  his  favor.  The  letter  of  the  Kishop  concluded  the  matter  in  accord- 
ance with  their  wishes,  by  precluding  a  resignation. 

On  the  concluding  paragraph  of  that  letter  comment  is  unnecessary;  but  it  may  be 
stated  that  the  intimation  was  deemed  sufficient  to  justify  Sherwood  in  the  supposition 
that  he  had  the  Bishop  with  him.  He  accordingly,  on  the  day  after  the  receipt  of  the 
Bishop's  letter,  addressed  him,  and  gained  his  ear  against  the  respondent. 

The  reply  of  the  Bishop  was  written  April  2d.  and  inviied  a  trial  of  the  respondent, 
thus:  "If  lie  be  a  had  man  he  never  can  be  regularly  dismissed,  neither  from  the  parish 
or  the  diocese.  If  he  be  a  good  man  and  wrongfully  accused,  the  Church  and  the  world 
ought  to  be  disabused,  his  reputation  being  very  much  injured  as  it  is." 

It  was  now  given  out  that  the  respondent  must  resign  or  he  would  be  forced  to  do  so ; 
if  not  otherwise,  that  charges  would  be  pretcrred  against  him,  and  he  would  "  be  si- 
lenced." 

Sherwood  had  by  this  time  succeeded  in  leaguing  together  with  him  in  his  mea- 
sures of  hostility  some  six  or  seven  male  members  of  the  congregation  ;  and,  through 
the  Ladies'  Sewing  Society,  and  directly  himself,  iu  enlisling  some  others  in  the  belief 
that  so  prominent  a  man  as  himself,  and  some  oi  the  six  or  seven  who  were  with  him, 
having  become  opposed  to  the  respondent,  it  was  expedient  for  him  to  resign.  Of  the 
former  class  were  the  witnesses  on  this  trial,  Hatfield  and  Collins  ;  (pages  24, '25,  32,  and 
83;)  from  the  portions  of  their  testimony,  which  have  been  submitted,  it  will  be  in- 
ferred how  faithful  as  allies  they  proved  themselves. 

The  Easter  election  was  now  looked  forward  to  as  the  time  when  an  expression  would 
be  made  relative  to  the  respondent,  that  would  be  decisive.  "  Previous  to  the  Easter 
election,"  testified  a  witness,  the  Senior  Warden  of  the  Church,  "  I  was  told  it  would 
be  of  no  use  to  make  much  exertion  in  favor  of  Mr.  W.,  as  the  Sherwood  men  would  be 
on  the  ground  and  beat  me. 

"  I  then  determined  to  enquire,  for  my  o^vn  satisfaction,  how  the  parishioners  were 
affected  towards  Mr.  W.  The  result  of  the  enquiry  was,  that  there  was  a  majority  of 
two  to  one  of  the  congregation  iu  favor  of  Mr  \V.,  and  a  large  majority  of  the  commu- 
nicants." 

At  the  election  it  transpired  that  Sherwood  had  succeeded  in  securing  the  co-opera- 
tion of  nineteen  in  the  warfare  which  himself  had  begun. 

His  bearing  at  the  election  was  given  by  a  witness  thus  : 

"  Mr.  S.  was  very  much  excited  ;  from  "his  language  and  manner,  I  should  think  he 
was  very  angry.  I  do  not  recollect  the  words  used  by  him  ;  only  the  impression  left 
upon  my  mind  at  the  time, — that  1  could  not  myself  calmly  listen  to  such  language  had 
I  Deen  in  Mr.  W.'s  position  ,  and  wondered  lioiv  Mr.  W.  "could.  1  was  observing  Mr. 
W.  very  closely,  feeling  very  anxious  that,  in  the  midst  of  such  exciting  elements,  he 
should  preserve  his  calmness  and  composure.  Mr.  W.  comported  himselt  with  a  dig- 
nity and  calmness  with  which  I  myself  was  astonished,  as  well  as  gratified,  in  view  of 
the  violent  language  used  by  those  who  were  ojiposed  to  him.  He  undoubtedly  felt 
some  interest  in  the  icsult,  but  I  unhesitatingly  sav,  that  his  whole  conduct  was  calm, 

and  in  accordance  with  his  position 1  judged  Mr.  W.  by  myself.    I  knew 

him  to  be  a  msn  of  a  generous  and  ardent  temperament.  ai  d  felt  that  1  myself,  under 
such  circumstances,  could  not  have  maintained  the  composure  that  he  did." 

The  secret  is,  the  respondent  "  knew  Whom  he  had  believed,  and  was  persuaded  that 
He  was  able  to  keep  that  which  he  had  committed  to  Him."  Hence,  he  was  "in  nothing 
terrified  ;"  but  his  "  heart  was  fixed,  trusting  in  the  Lord." 

With  Sherwood  were  "  his  men  :"  they  were  all  "  on  the  ground."  But,  in  the  result 
they  were  found  to  have  been  defeated  by  a  large  majority.  (See  page  15.)  Immedi- 
ately, several  of  them  took  up,  some  tore  up,  their  cushions, '&c.  in  the  Church,  and  left, 
bearing  them  away  under  their  arms. 

The  hual  step  remained  to  be  taken.  Sherwood  now  became  the  author  of  a  letter  to 
the  Bishop,  (page  3,  note,)  suslung  that  the  respondent  might  be  tried  on  charges  which 
he  himself  had  characterised  (and  the  opinion  now  stands  over  his  own  hand)  as  •'  un- 
just aspersion  and  malicious  ])eii;ecution,"  to  wit :  the  charges  in  the  2d  presentment  of 
1844;  (see  Appendix,  I ;)  pledging  himself,  with  others,  thus  :  ■•  We  hold  ourselves  re- 
sponsible for  the  expenses  of  the  tiial,  should  it  be  granted;"  and  stating,  '-if  acquitted 
we  propose  to  prefer  other  charges  against  him."  This  letter  was  signed  by  seven  be- 
sides Sherwood.  The  Bishop  thereupon  decided  to  grant  more  than  tlie  boon  nsked ;  to 
wit :  a  trial  on  the  former  charges,  and  a  chance  for  a  second,  irrespective  of  the  condi- 
tions of  the  letter. 


37 

Accordingly,  Sherwood  was  appointed  one  of  "five  persons:"  Gurdon  8-  Hub- 
bard, a  complainant  of  the  respondent,  another ;  the  Kev.  William  Allanson,  like- 
wise a  complainant  of  the  respondent,  another  ;  the  Uev.  Rector  of  St.  James'  Church, 
Chicago,  E.  B.  Kellogg,  likewise  a  complainant  of  the  respondent ,  another  ;  and  the 
Rev.  Charles  J.  Todd  another  ;  who,  by  their  act,  are  now  known  as  •'  presenters."  To 
speak  of  persons  occupying  the  po.sition  previously  towards  the  respondent  which  they 
occupied  as  the  committee  of  "investii^'ution,"  contemplated  by  the  Canon,  is  prepos- 
terous. They  could  not  "  examine  the  ca^e :''  and  they  did  not  attempt  it.  They  were 
agreed  in  the  opinion  of  the  Kev.  E.  B.  Kello^^g,  that  it  was  their  "  duty  to  proceed  ex 
parte"!  Consequently,  during  their  session, "tney  were  teimed,  by  those  in  the  same 
interest,  a  "  a  committee  to  get  up  charges."  This  duty  they  performed.  There  was, 
"  in  the  opinion"'  of  Sherwood  and  his  lour  associates,  "  sufficient  ground  for  prosent- 
ineut,"  and  the  respondent  was  ])resentcd  accordingly  1  That  presentment  wus  enter- 
tained by  the  Bishop  ;  and  both  he  and  .Sherwood  were  witnesses  against  the  respond- 
dent  on  the  trial '. 

Thus,  Sherwood,  by  his  zeal  for  "  the  good  of  the  Church,"  was  induced  to  serve,  in 
this  case,  as  solicitor  lor  the  trial  ;  as  accusing  witness;  as  supporter,  at  the  same  time, 
by  his  means,  of  the  prosecution  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  asjudge  to  decide  upon  the  re- 
spondent's probable  guilt  or  innocence  ! 

Of  the  Bishop's  testimony  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  .speak.  That  of  Sherwood  was 
most  remarkable.  It  aflbrded  a  striking  illustration  of  the  power  of  passion  so  to 
delude  a  man  as  to  cause  him  to  '•  believe  a  lie." 

This  must  be  the  apology  for  a  witness  who,  in  his  zeal  to  prove  disrespect  shown  by 
the  respondent  to  the  Bishop,  at  his  visit  in  Cliicago  in  184-5,  could  testify, — "  I  was 
here  when  he  arrived  ;  3Ir.  \V.  called  at  my  store  immediately  alter,  and  stated  to  me 
that  he  had  seen  the  Bishop;  and  that  day,  or  the  day  after,  lis  called  again,  and  pro- 
posed to  go  into  the  country  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  Bishop;"  and  that  he  af- 
terwards •'repro\ed  him  for  it,  telling  lumitwas  his  duty  to  return  good  for  evil;" 
when,  in  fact,  he  was  in  New  York  at  the  time  of  the  Bishop's  arrival  in  t  hicago,  and 
on  Lake  Erie  at  the  date  of  his  departure  !  That  he  meant  to  state  an  untruth  i.j  not  be- 
lieved nor  intended  to  be  intimated  ;  indeed,  '■  after  conversation  with  some  of  his 
friends  on  the  subject,"  he  did  correct  himself  in  part;  the  matter  is  stated  simply  to 
illustrate  a  temper  which  has  been  so  zealous  for  "  the  good  of  the  Church,"  and  which 
is  the  key  to,  as  it  was  tlie  cause  of,  the  respondent's  trial. 

That  temper,  it  is  proper  here  to  state,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  improved  by  the 
Verdict  of  the  Court.  Indeed,  that  Verdict  seems  to  be  taken  harder  than  was  the  re- 
sult of  the  Easter  election.  Not  understanding  how  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  Court 
did  not  find  as  he  had  sousrht  to  have  them,  and  unwilling  to  own  the  interposition  of 
Mercy  on  the  behalf  of  the  respondent,  Sherwood  attributes  it  to  another  agency  ;  and 
now,  in  a  communication  to  the  Senior  Warden  of  his  Church,  characterizes  him  (the 
respondent)  as  bearing  '•  the  hook  and  the  claw." ! 

In  this  state  of  mind  he  does  not  of  course  attend  on  the  public  duties  of  religion  in 
Trinity  Church.  Not  having  recovered  from  a  dislike  to  St.  James",  which  resulted  in 
the  first  schism  in  that  parish,  under  the  re.^pondent's  faithful  and  self-denying  prede- 
cessor, who  first  occupied  this  field  as  missionary,  and  established  the  Church  here,  he 
cannot,  or  will  not,  worship  there.  In  his  zeal  for  "  the  good  of  the  Church,"  he  has 
thus  cut  himsell  ort'  from  the  congregations  here,aud  brought  himself  to  live  in  the  prac- 
tical disregard  of  his  highest  duties. 

Such  is  the  temper  that  has  here  worked  against  the  respondent ;  such  the  spirit  by 
which  he  has  been  pursued  to  the  hazard  of  all  that  he  in  life  holds  dearest;  such  the 
instrumentality  by  which  the  preceding  Charges  were  aggregated  ;  such  the  key  to  the 
respondent's  presentment  and  trial. 

It  occasions  sincere  pain  to  the  respondent  thus  to  write.  But  the  duty  seems  to  be  so 
laid  upon  him,  that  he  may  not  shrink  from  it.  His  friends  abroad  claim  to  know^ 
the  things  which  he  has  suffered,  with  the  facts  attending  them.  For  them,  chiefly, 
this  paper  is  intended.    At  home,  it  is  neither  required  nor  needed. 

In  the  language  of  the  judicious  Hooker,  slightly  accommodated  :  "The  greater  part  of 
the  good  people  heie  at  this  day  already  peiceive,  and  others  be  like  hereafter  a  great 
deal  more  plainly  to  discern,  not  that  the  respondent  in  the  case  now  submitted,  has 
been  thus  heaved  at  because  he  is  wicked,  but  that  these  means  have  been  used  to  put  it 
into  the  heads  of  the  multitude  that  he  is  such  indeed,  to  the  end  that  those  who  thirst 
for  the  control  of  •  the  inheritance  which  God  hath  given  him  to  inherit,'  may,  till  such 
time  as  they  have  their  jjurpose,  be  thought  to  covet  nothing  but  only  the  just  extin- 
guishment of  an  unreformable  person  ;'^so  that  in  regard  of  such  men's  intentions 
practices,  and  machinations  against  him,  the  part  that  sutt'ereth  these  things  may  most 
fitly  pray  with  David,  'Judge  Thou  me,  O  Lord,  according  to  thy  rigViteousness,  and 
according  unto  mine  innocency  :  O  let  the  malice  of  the  wicKed  come  to  an  end,  and  be 
Thou  the  guide  of  the  just.' 

"Notwithstanding,  forasmuch  as  it  doth  not  stand  with  Christian  humility  otherwise 
to  think,  than  that  this  violent  outrage  of  men  is  a  rod  in  the  ireful  hand  of  the  Lord 
our  God,  the  smart  wdiereof  he  deserves  to  feel,  let  it  not  seem  grievous  in  the  eyes  of 
his  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  theBishops  of  this  Church,  or  of  his  bretliren  of  the  clergy  and 
laity,  who  may  see  these  pages,  that  the  respondent  should  offer  these  things  to  their 
good  consideration." 
The  history  is  submitted  without  comment. 

The  foregoing  Answer  is  printed  as  it  was  read,  with  some  slight  exceptions, 
which  are,  for  the  most  part,  indicated  by  brackets.  It  deserves  to  be  stated,  in  bar  of 
a  ri^id  criticism,  that  it  was  drawn  up  in  Court,  during  the  last  hours  of  its  session, 
while  the  Counsel  were  engaged  in  summing  up  the  case,  and  under  the  excitement 
and  distraction  necessarily  incident  to  such  a  scene,  and  to  an  hour  on  which  such  is- 
sues were  depending  as  the  respondent  had  then  at  stake.  It  was  not  intended  as  evi- 
dence, but  as  an  explanation.  As  such,  it  was  unquestioned  at  the  time,  and  is  sus- 
tained by  the  decision  of  the  Court.    It  therefore  accords  with  the  evidence  adduced  on 


38 

the  trial.  Hence,  there  is  here  furnished  the  data  by  ivhich  the  presenters  were  influ- 
enced to  present,  and  the  Bishop  to  put  upon  trial  the  subject  ol  their  united  dislike- 
By  a  comparison  of  all  with  the  37th  General  Canon,  (see  Introduction,  page  3,)  where- 
in is  set  forth  the  '■  olfences  for  which  ministers  shall  be  tried  and  punished,"  it  may  be 
judged  whether  these  charges  were  exactly  measured  by  tliat  law,  as  it  is  commonly  re- 
ceived ;  or  w'.iether  the  sense  of  that  law  was  expanded  to  suit  a  case,  according  to  a 
principle  set  forth  by  Bisliop  Cliase,  and  believed  to  be  peculiar  to  himself,  to  wit: 
"The  Canon  of  the  Church  refers  to  the  Rubric, and  Kubric  carries  into  itlcct  the  in- 
junction of  Holy  Scripture;  and  wherein  the  Hubric  is  silent  as  to  the  wifMoc/ of  carry- 
ing the  Scriptural  injunctions  into  eJlect,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  jud^re  whether 
the  intent  of  the  Kubric  as  founded  on  Scripture  has  been  fullilled  or  not." — [Decision  of 
Bishop  Clidse  on  the  case  of  Becker,  June,  1844,  Appendix,  M.)  Hence  it  is,  probably,  that 
Bishop  Chase  has  been  wont  to  sign  himself  "  Bishop  and  Judge."' 

The  charges  preferred  against  the  respondent  never  of  themselves  gave  him  but  small 
concern.  He  telt,  it  is  true,  keenly  felt,  the  odium  attached  to  a  jiresentment ;  and  was 
not  insensible  to  the  fact  that  abroad,  where  the  circumstances  were  not  understood, 
and  the  parties  not  known,  as  at  home,  he  would  inevitably  sutler  from  such  priOTaj^a- 
cie  evidence  of  faultiness.  But  he  has  ever  believed  that  the  matters  aflecting  him 
would  come  to  be  understood  eventually  ;  and  because  of  this  hope  he  has,  for  the  most 
part,  been  of  good  courage. 

There  have  been  circumstances  connected  with  the  finding,  entertaining,  and  trying 
of  those  cliarges  which  have  inspired  deeper  concern.  Episcopal  influence,  and  the  in- 
lluence  of  wealth,  are  stern  matters  for  a  dependant  presybyter  to  encounter  and  stand 
against.  They  are  sometimes  fearful  in  their  bearings  upon  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice.* But  in  this  case,  thanks  to  God  1  the  weak  things  of  the  world  have  confounded 
the  mighty.  The  respondent  has  escaped  the  snares  ot  the  fowlers  ;  and  with  a  united 
and  increasing  congiegation,  bound  to  him  and  he  to  them  all  the  more  closely  for  the 
things  he  has  suffered,  strives  to  glorify  his  Lord  and  Master  on  this  behalf— for  that  He 
has  been  to  him  a  present  help  in  ail  the  time  of  his  trouble  ;  for  that  He  has  proved 
Himself,  in  his  case,  a  strenutb  to  the  poor,  a  strength  to  tub  seedy  is  his  distress,  a 

REFUGE  FROM  THE  8T0R.M,  A  SHADOW  FROM  THE  HEAT,  WHES  lUK  BLAST  OP  TH«  TERRIBLE  OSEfl  WAS 
A8  A  8T0BJU  AGAINST  THE  WALL.      (Isa.  XXV.  4.) 


KIT' Answer  could  not  be  here  made,  as  was  proposed,  (pa,gel3,)  to  the  presentment  of 
1844,  because  the  Court  declined  to  sit  to  try  it— deeming  it  out  of  Court,  and  defunct ; 
though  the  respondent  asked  and  urged  that  he  might  be  tried  on  it  on  his  own  motion, 
and  tiie  same  had  been  consented  to  by  all  parties  at  the  opening  of  this  case. 

"We  accept  the  proposition  to  nroceed  upon  both  presentments,"'  was  the  declara- 
tion of  the  presenters'  counsel.  The  counsel  employed  by  the  Bishop,  and  the  Court 
acquiesced. 

A  brief  answer,  or  explanation,  shall  accompany  it  in  the  Appendix. 

*In  illustration  it  maybe  stated,  that  in  this  case.  Bishop  Chase,  while  on  the  stand, 
as  a  witness,  and  in  a  manner  that  will  not  soon  pass  from  the  memory  of  those  who 
witnessed  it,  shook  his  hand  emphatically  at  the  Court,  and  said—"  They  may  remember 
that  they  too  are  amenable  '." 


III.  VERDICT  OF  THE  COURT. 


The  Ecclesiastical  Court  convened  in  the  city  of  Chica"-o  on  the 
26th  of  August  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  184G,  lo  try  the  Rev.  Wm. 
F.  Walker,  on  certain  charges  and  specifications  alleged  against  him 
in  a  Presentment  bearing  date  the  sixth  of  May,  after  patiently 
listening  to  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  parties,  and  the  aro-uments 
of  their  counsel,  and  carefully  deliberating  upon  the  testimony, 
have  agreed  upon  the  following  verdict,  to  wit : 

Specificatiox  First — Not  guilty  in  the  form  alleged,  and  cen- 
surable only  for  taking  any  part  in  an 
election  under  circumstances  so  exciting. 

Specification  Second — Net  guilty. 

Specification  Third — No  evidence  received. 

Specification  Fourth — Not  guilty. 

Specification  Fifth — Not  guilty. 

Specification  Sixth — Not  guilty. 

Specification  Seventh — Guilty,  in  that  he  exhibited  an  un- 
christian temper. 
Specification  Eighth — Not  guilty. 

Specification  Ninth — Not  guilty,  in  manner  and  form  alleged, 

but  censurable  in  that  he  did  not  pay  his 

respects  to  the  Bishop,  and  present  his 

class  for  confirmation. 

Specification  Tenth — Guilty  in  so  far  as  he  exhibited  an  un- 

clu'istian  temper. 
Specification  Eleventh — No  evidence  adduced. 
(Signed,) 

CHARLES  DRESSER, 
GEO.  P.  GIDDINGE, 
JOSEPH  L.  DARROW, 
JAMES  DE  PUL 

To  the  Right  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of 
Illinois : 

The  Court  above  named,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Canon  first  of  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  1845,  still  further  ex- 
press and  recommend  as  their  opinion,  that  he  pronounce  upon  the 
Rev.  respondent  the  lightest  penalty  that  the  General  Canon  al- 
lows, viz.  admonition.  » 

Still  farther,  in  view  of  what  the  respondent  has  already  suffer- 
ed, and  the  expense  of  a  journey  to  the  Bishop's  residence,  the 


40 

Court  would  respectfully  suggest  that  the  admonition  be  adminis- 
tered without  exacting;  his  attendance. 
Signed  in  behalf  of  the  Court, 

CHARLES  DRESSER,  Pres't. 
Chicago,  Sept.  10th,  1846. 

I  certify  that  the  above  is  a  true  copy  of  the  verdict  and  opinion 
of  the  Court,  as  originally  given. 

GEO.  P.  GIDDINGE. 

There  are  some  striking  peculiarities  in  the  above  "  Verdict." 

The  "  decision  on  the  charges  respectively,'"  it  will  be  seen, 

First,  is,  in  fact,  an  acquittal  "  on  the  charges  contained  in  the  presentment." 

Second,  that  it  convicts  for  certain, /a 'frti  not  ^'■contained  in  the  presentment,"  but  de- 
duced by  the  Court.     {See  Dioces.  Canon,  page  f,  sec.  9.) 

Third,  that  the  faults  thus  deduced  by  tlie  Court  are  not  recognised  in  the  General 
Canon,  which  specifies  the  "  offences  for  which  miuit^ters  shall  be  tried  and  punished." 
(&e  Gea.  Canon,  pa^e  4,  sec.  1  and  2.) 

Fourth,  that  the  Court  "  still  further  express  and  recommend  as  their  opinion,"  a 
"sentence  which  should  be  pronounced,"  to  wit:  "the  lightest  ])enalty  that  the  Gen- 
eral Canon  allows,  viz.,  admonition,  administered  without  cxactnighis,''  (the  respond- 
ent's) "attendarice,"  which  contravenes  the  following  provision  in  tlie  Diocesan  Canon  : 

"Before  pronouncing  any  sentence,  the  Bi-hop  shall  summon  the  accused,  and  any 
three  or  more  of  the  clergy,  to  meet  him  at  such  time  as  may  in  his  opinion  be  most  con- 
venient, in  some  church  to  be  designated  by  him,  which  shall  for  that  purpose  be  open 
at  the  time  to  all  persons  who  may  chose  to  attend,  and  the  seuteuce  shall  then  and 
there  be  publicly  pronounced  by  the  Bisho])." 

Fifth,  that  the  "  penalty"  "  recommended  bv  the  Board,"  an'!  allowed,  as  lecomme/id- 
ed,  by  ^^  the  General  Canon',"  may  not  be  exceeded,  because  of  the  provision  in  the  Dio- 
cesan Canon,  that  the  sentence  which  the  Bisho]),  (who  is  executive  of"  the  Board"  in 
so  far  as  relates  to  the  pronouncing  of  the  sentence,)  "shall  pronounce,  shall  not  exceed 
in  severity  the  sentence  recommended  by  the  Board  ;  and  such  sentence  shall  be  final." 

This,  then,  in  short,  appears  to  be  the  state  of  the  case  with  respect  to  the  "  Verdict;" 
to  wit:  that  the  Bishop  should  declare  judgment  to  have  been  rendered  in  favor  of 
the  respondent,  notwithstanding  the  "  Verdict;"  and  lor  the  reasons, 

1st,  That  the  "  decision"  in  the  Verdict,  "  on  the  charges  respectively,"  so  far  as  it 
finds  the  respondent  guilty,  does  it  not  for  "olfonces"  recognized  by  Canon,  and 
charged  in  the  presentment,  but  touchiu"  such  indiscretions  of  the  res])ondent  as  the 
Court  seemed  to  have  thought  incidental  to  the  subject  matter  of  such  charges,  and, 
therefore,  as  to  the  Court,  '•  coram  rwnjiidice." 

2d,  Because  the  sentence  in  the  Verdict,  if  executed,  must  be  taken  in  its  integral 
character;  but  the  sentence  recommended,  a.?  rfc<)»i;7!rii'yff/,  and  manifestly  allowed  as 
recommended  by  the  General  Canon,  cannot  be  pronounced,  because  of  its  contrariety 
to  the  Diocesan  Canon  ;  and  because  the  same  Canon  will  not  allow  that  sentence  to  be 
so  pronounced,  as  to  be  in  accordance  with  it. 

All  this  is  submitted  without  intentional  disrespect  to  the  Court,  in  whose  conscien- 
tiousness and  disposition  to  perform  their  duty  in  the  case,  the  respondent  has  and  baa 
ever  had  the  most  entire  confidence  ;  and  towards  every  member  of  which  he  cherishes 
the  regard  of  a  brother  in  the  Church.  He  is  duly  sensible  of  the  difficult  and  embar- 
■rassing  nature  of  their  position.  Therefore  in  scrutinizing  and  criticizing  thus  their 
Verdict,  he  bars  the  supposition  that  it  is  his  intention  to  liud  fault  with  or  to  censure 
them. 


APPENDIX, 

Containing  tlie  papers  referred  to  in  the  foregoing,  and 
matters  connected  witli  tliem. 


A,  page  16. 

The  following  is  so  much  of  the  provision  in  the  "  By-Laws  of 
the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church"  on  the  subject  of  "  meetings  of  the 
Board,"  as  this  issue  involves  : — 

There  shall  be  stated  meetinj^s  of  the  Board  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
each  month,  and  occasional  meetings  at  any  time,  on  the  request  of  any 
three  members  of  the  Board ;  provided,  in  such  case,  at  least  one  day's 
notice  be  given  in  writing  under  the  hand  of  the  Hector,  if  there  be  one ; 
if  there  be  no  Rector,  or  he  be  absent,  of  one  of  the  Church-wardens,  or 
the  time  be  fixed  by  adjournment  at  a  previous  meeting. — By-Laws  of 
the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  Article  V.  Sec.  1. 


B,  page  16. 

The  following  is  the  note  referred  to  : 
Major  H. : — 

There  are  no  notices  to  be  given  for  a  Vestry  meeting  to-day.  The 
Sen.  Warden  is  engaged  in  Court,  and,  together  with  several  members  of 
the  Vestry  whom  I  have  seen,  thinks  a  meeting  not  necessary. 

Yours,  AV.  F.  WALKER. 

[Chicago,  March  3, 1846.] 


C,  page  16. 

The  forged  note  referred  to  was  as  follows : 
Dear  Sir: 

Please  attend  a  stated  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trinity  Church  on  the 
3d  instant,  Tuesday,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.,  at  the  oflSce  of  the  Clerk  of  the 
Board  of  Vestry,  No.  144  Lake  street. 
Yours  truly, 

W.  F.  WALKER,  Rector. 
Isaac  P.  Hatfield.  Clerk. 
Chicago,  Tuesday  morning,  March  3d,  1846. 

6 


42 
D,  page  17. 

The  "  note"  alleged,  in  Article  IT.  of  the  Presentment,  to  hare 
been  "  received  from  Mr.  W.  addressed  to  the  V(\stry,  stating  that 
the  Vestry-room  of  the  Church  was  the  proper  place  to  hold  the 
meeting,  and  that  he  would  meet  them  there  at  3  o'clock,"  (see  page 
8,)  and  referred  to  in  page  17,  was  the  following : 

Mr.  W.  H.  Adams,  Warden  of  Trinity  Church. 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

There  has  this  moment  been  put  iato  my  hands  a  notice  for  a  meeting 
of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  at  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Board 
of  Vestry,  this  afternoon  at  3  o'clock,  purporting  to  be  signed  by  myself 
as  Rector.  The  object  of  this  communI(;ation  is  to  inform  you,  and  any 
others  who  may  assemble  pursuant  to  such  notice, — Avhich  probably  haa 
been  circulated  among  the  Vestry, — that  no  such  notice  has  issued  from 
me  ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  I  instructed  the  Clerk  to  call  no  meeting  to- 
day, and  to  pronounce  said  notice  a.  forfjcry. 

Disavowing  entirely  the  notice,  which  was  unnecessar)-  as  it  was  sinful, 
for  that  the  By-Laws  appoint  the  stated  meetings  expressly  for  the  first 
Tuesday  in  each  month,  I  shall  be  at  the  place  at  which  our  stated  meet- 
ings have  ever  been  holden — the  Vestry-room  of  the  Church — and  be 
ready  to  open  and  be  present  in  a  Vestry  meeting,  should  a  quorum  be 
present,  and  at  the  usual  hour  of  3  o'clock. 
Yours  faithfully, 


Tuesday,  March  3, 1846. 


W.  F.  WALKER, 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church. 


E,  page  19. 

Letter  to  the  Bishop. 

Chicago,  April  24, 1845. 

Right  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: 

Shall  our  Church  be  consecrated,  and  confirmation  be  administered  in 
it  for  my  parlsli  this  season  ? 

Many  are  the  enquiries  made  of  me  almost  weekly  on  these  subjects, 
whicli  I  am  unable  to  answer.  Several  candidates  await  confirmation, 
and  all  interested  would  be  happy  to  have  our  neat  and  conmiodions 
Temple  consecrated  to  Ilim  for  whose  worship  and  service  it  has  been 
erected. 

If  you  should  visit  us  for  the  purposes  named,  it  would  gratify  me  and 
mine  to  have  you  make  our  house  your  home  during  your  stay  here ; 
though  ]Mr.  Slierwood,  Warden,  will  claim  the  favor  of  entertaining  you. 

That  a  visit  to  Chicago  now  would  prove  more  grateful  to  }'ou  than  was 
your  last,  I  may  assure  you  with  some  confidence. 

That  it  would  give  me  pleasure  to  hear  from  my  Bishop,  I  need  hardly 
say ;  and  to  meet  him  as  we  parted  on  board  of  the  steamboat,  since 
which  he  has  encountered  such  duties  and  trials,  would  make  me  espe- 
cially happy.  I  had  hoped  to  have  heard  from  him  since  his  return  ;  but 
have  not,  except  in  the  communication  of  the  sentences  of  the  suspended 
Bishops. 

Those  sentences  were  pubhshed  by  me  as  required. 
I  am,  Bishop,  yours, 

faithfully  and  dutifully, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 

Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D. 


43 
F,  page  19. 

Reply  from  the  Bishop. 

Jubilee,  30th  April,  1845. 

To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker. 
Dear  Sir  : 

I  received  yours  of  the  24th  of  April,  desiring  me  to  come  to  Chicago 
and  consecrate  the  new  Chuich,  for  the  building  of  which  I  gave  SlOO 
when  last  in  that  city. 

Is  this  Church  finished  ?  Is  it  out  of  debt  ?  Is  the  lot  of  land  on  which 
it  is  built  deeded  to  a  body  corporate  in  law,  or  to  an  individual  in  trust 
for  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ibr  ever '?  Is  there  no  mortgage  or 
other  lien  on  this  pro])erty  ? 

Please  answer  me  the  foregoing  questions  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

My  health  is  quite  iTifirm,  by  reason  of  the  injuries  received  in  several 
falls,  both  in  the  steamboat,  and  since  my  arrival  at  home.  In  the  night 
I  have  but  little  rest.  Such  is  the  diHiculty  in  any  rccumJtent  position,  I 
seek  repose  in  a  chair.  When  1  shall  commence  my  visitations  of  the  Di- 
ocese, I  am  unable  to  say. 

I  trust  to  be  well  enough  to  attend  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  on 
the  16th  of  June  at  S])ringfield.  From  there,  I  shall  try  to  visit  Alton, 
Albion,  Chester,  and  (^uincy. 

Perhaps  I  may  go  to  the  northern  parts  of  my  Diocese  in  the  fall. 
Your  faithful  servant  in  Jesus  Christ, 

PHILANDER  CHASE. 


G,  page  19. 

A  copy  of  the  letter  referred  to  is  not  to  be  found  among  the  pa- 
pers of  Trinity  Church,  which  have  come  into  the  hands  of  the 
present  Vestry.  Application  was  made  to  the  Bishop  for  a  copy, 
but  he  "  could  not  lay  liis  hands  upon  the  letter  at  the  time ;"  there- 
fore the  favor  asked  was  not  granted. 

The  facts  communicated  in  that  letter,  and  for  which  chiefly  it 
would  be  of  value  here,  were  substantially  the  following : 

Trinity  Church  edifice,  the  corner-stone  of  which  was  laid  June  5th, 
1844,  was  completed  in  September  following.  Its  cost  was  a  trifle  below 
$3000.  Two-thirds  of  this  amount  were  contnbuted  by  friends  of  the 
enterprise,  in  small  sums  varying  from  $100  down  to  SI.  The  balance 
was  obtained  thus :  $345  on  individual  notes  for  one  year,  at  12  percent, 
interest ;  $630  on  scrip — in  sums,  for  the  most  part,  of  $50 — in  form  as 
follows : — 


Due  from  Trinity  Church,  Chicago, dollars,  which  it  prom- 
ises to  pay  to ,  or  order,  out  of  the  first  surplus  funds  ot  said 

Church,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  twelve  per  cent,  per  annum,  which 
interest  is  at  any  time  appUcable  to  the  payment  of  pew  rent  in  said 
Church. 

(Signed,)  ,  Clerk 

and  Treasurer  of  the  Board.,.  ^, 
Chicago, ,  1846. 

No  part  of  this  indebtedness  is  a  hen  on  the  Church  lot  or  edifice.  Thr 
amount  of  S345,  with  interest,  is  all  for  which  the  congregation  may  be 
called  upon  till  it  has  surplus  funds;  save  that  the  holders  of  the  $630  in 


44 

•crip  may  have  their  interest  applied  in  payment  of  their  pew  rent  at  anr 
time ;  if  not  thus  applied,  that  interest  is  payable  at  the  same  time  with 
the  principal. 

The  lot  on  v/hich  the  Church  edifice  stands  was  obtained  through  the 
instrumentality  of  the  Rector  from  the  Canal  Board ;  its  title  is  in  the  cor- 
poration. 

The  income  of  the  Church  has  been  more  than  adequate  to  meet  its 
current  and  contingent  expenses  thus  far  ;  and  the  congregation  is  uni- 
ted, increasing,  and  prosperous. 

Such  was,  in  substance,  the  letter  of  the  Cor.  Secretary  of  the 
Vestry,  to  the  Bishop,  in  May,  184.5.  The  debt  of  the  Church, 
which  precluded  its  consecration,  is  thus  shown  ;  together  with  the 
fact  of  the  Bishop  having  been  officially  informed  by  the  Vestry  of 
the  state  of  the  parish  but  two  months  before  his  visit  in  Chicago, 
which  took  place  in  July  following. 


H,  page  19. 

One  month  subsequent  to  the  letter  of  the  Cor.  Secretary,  the 
respondent  reported  to  the  Bishop,  in  Convention,  as  follows  : 

I  accepted  the  rectorship  of  St.  James  and  Trinity  Churches,  in  the 
city  of  Chicago,  about  the  first  of  August,  184.3.  My  connection  with  the 
two  parishes  continued  till  the  following  Easter,  (April  7,  1844,)  when 
that  with  St.  James'  was  terminated  by  my  resignation,  the  Bishop  con- 
senting. During  the  period  of  my  charge  of  the  two  parishes,  I  officiated 
twice  each  Lord's  day  in  St.  James'  Church,  achninistered  the  Holy  Com- 
munion on  the  first  Sunday  in  each  month,  and  on  Christmas  day,  and 
opened  the  Church  for  morning  prayer  and  an  occasional  lecture  on  the 
other  stated  Festivals  and  Holy  days. 

From  Advent  to  Easter,  on  Sunday  evenings,  in  addition  to  the  two 
regular  services  in  St.  James'  Church,  I  officiated  more  particularly 
for  Trinity  parish  in  a  public  "  Saloon"  immediately  within  it.  In  the 
same  period,!  officiated  four  times  and  administered  the  Holy  Communion 
once,  in  the  country,  15  miles  west  from  Chicago,  in  a  neighborhood  em- 
bracing some  few  members  of  our  communion  who  desired  my  services. 

The  children  sent  to  me  were  instructed  catechetically  every  Sunday. 

My  charge  consisted  of  about  110  families.  I  baptizt-d  52  (infants  44, 
adults  8)  ;  presented  for  confirmation  22  ;  added  to  the  communion  45  ; 
making  the  whole  number  of  communicants  131  ;  buried  10  ;  and  united 
10  in  holy  matrimony. 

With  the  approbation  of  the  Bishop,  the  system  of  weekly  Sunday  of- 
ferings, in  connection  with  the  "  Offertory,"  was  commenced  by  me  at  my 
entrance  upon  my  joint  charge,  and  was  happily  continued  till  its  close. 
The  amount  thus  received  exceeded  by  a  trifle  1 70  dollars,  exclusive  of 
the  alms  received  at  the  Holv  Communion.  These  oflerinss  were  appro- 
priated in  part  to  the  N.  Y.  B.  &  C  P.  B.  Society ;  to  the  N.  Y.  P.  E.  T. 
Society ;  to  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Church ;  to  the 
Bishop  to  defray  the  expenses  of  his  visit  to  Chicago  to  institute  me,  &c.; 
and,  in  part,  to  aid  in  defraying  some  contingent  Church  expenses  ;  and  to 
purposes  of  parochial  charity.  In  addition  to  the  Sunday  offerings,  funds 
were  raised  to  pay  for  alterations  and  improvements  in  the  Church  edifice, 
for  the  Bishop,  and  for  the  Hector's  salarj'. 

Since  Easter,  1844,  my  connection  has  been  with  Trinity  Church  ex- 
clusively.    Our  services,  which  were  two  on  each  Lord's  day,  were  held 


45 

in  a  public  "  Saloon"  until  September.  In  that  month,  we  commenced  the 
occupancy  of  a  new,  tasteful  and  commodious  Church  edifice,  the  corner 
stone  of  which  was  laid  in  June  preceding  by  the  Bishop,  and  which,  with 
a  most  praiseworthy  zeal,  the  congregation  had  brought  to  such  happy 
completion.  Tliis  Church  has  since  been  open  for  the  stated  morning  and 
evening  services  each  Sunday,  and  lor  instruction  by  mc,  catecheticaliy, 
of  such  children  and  youth  as  have  been  sent  to  me  for  the  purpose  ;  for 
morning  prayers  on  other  Festivals  and  Holy  days  ;  and,  from  Advent  to 
Easter,  for  a  service,  additional  to  the  two  stated  Lord's  day  services,  on 
Sunday  evenings. 

I  have  administered  the  holy  communion,  during  this  period,  on  the  first 
Sunday  in  each  month,  and  on  the  Festivals  ot  Christmas,  Easter,  and 
the  Ascension ;  and  have  oiiiciated  eleven  times  and  administered  the 
holy  communion  once,  in  the  country,  20  miles  north  of  Chicago,  where  is 
an  interesting  body  of  people  really  attached  to  the  Church,  and  whose 
claims  are  urgent  for  a  missionary  to  gather  them  together  permanently 
in  one,  and  to  break  to  them  "  the  bread  of  life." 

My  charge  at  present  embraces  about  93  families.  The  whole  number 
of  communicants  within  it  is  89  ;  5  have  withdrawn,  and  4  removed;  28 
have  been  added  as  new.  I  have  baptized  38  (infonts  35,  adults  3)  ;  bu- 
ried 14  ;  and  married  1 2.  None  have  been  confirmed,  for  the  want  of  op- 
portunity :  several  are  "  ready  and  desirous  to  be  confirmed." 

The  system  of  weekly  Sunday  otlerings,  in  connection  with  the  "Of- 
fertory," has  been  observed  in  the  parish,  and  with  gratifying  results. 
The  amount  received  has  been  about  S250.  This  has  been  appropriated 
to  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Church;  to  purposes  of  pa- 
rochial and  general  charity ;  and  to  aid  in  defraying  contingent  Church 
expenses.  In  addition  to  the  offerings,  the  gentlemen  of  the  parish  have 
twice  made  generous  contributions  to  the  Rector,  over  and  above  the  sal- 
ary ;  and  erected  the  beautiful  temple  in  which  we  now  assemble,  and 
which  awaits  only  the  convenience  and  pleasure  of  the  Bishop  to  be  for- 
mally consecrated  to  Him  for  whose  worship  and  service  it  is  intended ; 
while  the  ladies,  most  zealous  in  the  cause,  have  procured  carpets,  lamps, 
and  trimmings  for  the  Church,  and  furnished  the  Rector  with  a  beautiful 
robe. 

The  parish  appears  to  be  united  and  prosperous.  May  the  blessing  of 
God  Almighty  still  be  upon  it  I 

Immediately  after  the  reading  of  this  report,  the  Bishop  stated, 
in  open  Convention,  that  Trinity  Church,  Chicago,  was  in  debt, 
and  could  not  be  consecrated  till  that  debt  was  paid  off.  The  re- 
spondent attempted  to  explain  the  amount  and  character  of  the 
debt,  to  show  that  it  was  not  a  real  obstacle  to  consecration,  it  be- 
ing, for  the  most  part,  merely  nominal ;  but  the  Bishop  declared 
that  he  should  adhere  to  his  determination. 

On  his  return  to  Chicago,  this  was  stated,  by  the  respondent,  to 
members  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and  othei's.  They  felt 
aggrieved  by  it,  and  decided  not  again  to  seek  the  consecration  of 
their  Church,  nor  further  to  exert  themselves  to  allow  of  its  being 
consecrated  on  the  Bishop's  terms. 

Thus  this  matter  stood,  when  the  letter  that  follows,  of  July 
12th,  was  received : 

JuBijLEE  College,  July  12th,  1845. 

To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker. 
Dear  Sir  : 

I  have  appointed  to  consecrate  the  Church  in  .Juliet  on  Sunday  the 
27th,  if  the  Vestry  and  friends  will  pay  off  the  debt  which  it  at  present 
owes. 


4^ 

This  being  so  small  a  sinn,  (only  $100,)  I  trust  they  will  liquidate  in 
good  faith,  and  thus  enable  me  to  consecrate. 

If  your  people  wiU  do  the  same  with  St.  Panr.<!,  [Trinity  is  meant,]  I 
will  do  the  same  duty  in  Chicago  on  Tuesday,  29th  of  July. 
Trusting  it  will  be  so  done, 

I  am, 
Your  faithful  servant  in  Christ, 

P.  CHASE. 


I,  page  20. 

Canon  XIV.  of  1838,  in  full,  which  was  repealed  June  1845, 
(see  page  6,  sec.  13,)  was  as  follows  : 

Caxon  XIY. 
llie  Trial  of  Clo.rfijjmen. 

Sect.  1.  In  all  cases  of  presentment  contemplated  by  the  Constitution 
and  Canons  of  the  General  Convention,  a  copy  of  the  charge  or  charges 
and  specifications,  together  with  a  citation  to  aj)pear  and  answer,  shall  be 
served  upon  the  party  accused,  in  the  manner  hereinafter  provided,  with 
all  convenient  speed. 

Sect.  2.  Tlie  regular  place  of  ti-ial,  and  the  office  for  the  records  of  all 
ecclesiastical  proceedings,  shall  be  the  house  of  the  Bishop.  But  if  there 
be  no  Bishop,  the  Standing  Committee  shall  appoint  tlie  place  for  these 
purposes ;  and  the  Bishop,  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of  his  council 
of  advice,  may  appoint  any  place  within  the  Diocese  for  the  trial,  if  there 
be  any  special  reasons  moving  liim  thereto. 

Sect.  3.  All  testimony  atlduced  upon  the  trial  shall  be  in  writing,  ta- 
ken on  due  notice  to  the  parties  either  by  a  commissary  appointed  for 
that  purpose  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority,  or  in  the  manner  of  commis- 
sions or  depositions  in  civil  cases.  But  tliis  provision  shall  not  prevent 
the  appearance  of  the  witnesses  and  the  licariug  of  their  testimony  on  the 
trial,  whenever  it  shall  be  preferred  by  either  ])arty. 

Sect.  4.  Advocates  or  proctors  shall  bt'  allowed,  on  both  sides,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  parties,  provided  they  are  clergymen  canonically  resident 
in  the  Diocese,  or  laymen  who  have  been  communicants  of  some  parish 
of  the  same  at  least  two  yeai-s  before  the  trial. 

Sect.  5.  The  Bishoj)  shall  preside  ujjon  the  trial  as  Judge,  and  not 
less  than  three  or  more  than  six  Presbyters,  shall  be  assessors  with 
him,  the  names  of  which  Presbyters  shall  be  selected  by  the  ac- 
cused out  of  a  list  of  twelve,  who  shall  be  unconnected  with  said  party  by 
relationship  or  marriage,  and  can  declaj-e  that  they  have  not  expressed  an 
opinion  as  to  his  guilt  or  innocence.  But  if  there  be  not  so  many  Pres- 
byters in  the  Diocese,  then  the  Standing  Committee  shall  fill  up  said  hst 
with  the  names  of  all  the  Presbyters,  and  if  the  accused  shall  neglect  or 
refuse  to  make  his  selection,  the  Standing  Committee  shall  select  lor  him. 
On  the  verdict  of  the  majority  of  these  assessors,  the  Bishop  may  rest  his 
judgment  in  the  case,  or  may,  if  he  think  proper,  order  a  new  trial,  and 
the  sentence  which  he  pronounces  shall  be  delivered  and  recorded  before 
the  rising  of  the  court :  Provided,  always,  nevertheless,  that  if  the  Bishop 
be  related  to  the  accused,  or  if  he  be  a  party  concerned,  he  may,  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Standing  Committee,  request  some  neighbor- 
ing Bishop  to  preside  upon  the  trial,  and  if  the  Diocese  be  vacant,  th|e 
Standing  Committee  shall  request  the  services  of  such  Bishop  as  they  may 
find  most  convenient. 

Sect.  6.  All  citations  and  notices  in  any  ecclesiastical  proceedings, 
whether  to  parties  or  Wtnesses,  may  be  served  either  personally  or  hj 
leaving  a  copy  thereof  at  their  residences  respectively,  the  time  between 
the  day  of  service  and  the  day  of  appearance  being  not  less  than  twenty 
days  over  and  above  the  ordinary  time  required  to  travel  to  the  place  of 


417 

appearance,  and  in  case  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a  minister,  &c.  &c. 
(as  in  sec.  10,  page  6.) 

Sect.  2  of  Canon  XV.  of  1838,  repealed  with  the  above,  (see 
page  6,  sect.  13,)  it  may  be  well  to  insert  here  :  it  was  as  follows : 

In  all  cases  of  presentment  whether  of  Bisliops  or  other  ISIinisters, 
where  the  party  accused  sliall  neglect  or  refuse  to  appear,  sentence  of 
suspension  sluiU  be  declared  for  contumacy;  which  sentence  shall  con* 
tinue  in  force  until  the  party  consents  to  a  regular  trial. 


"  The  Presentment  of  1844,"  for  which  reference  was  made  to 
this  place,  has  gone  from  the  respondent's  possession  and  control- 
One  in  the  opposing  interest,  a  presenter,  yea,  a  Rev.  brother !  took 
it  from  a  place  in  which  it  had  been  allowed  to  remain  for  some 
time,  and,  knowing,  as  he  has  admitted  he  did,  whose  it  was,  sent 
it  to  Robin's  Nest !  From  thence  it  has  not  been  retumed,  though 
itself,  or  a  copy  of  it,  was  applied  for  in  time  for  inseition  here. 

Deprived  tlius  unfortunately,  as  it  seemed,  of  a  most  important 
paper,  it  was  hardly  known  how  its  place  could  be  supplied,  when, 
by  a  merciful  interposition,  more  than  had  been  taken  away  was 
furnished  ;  even  the  statements  on  which  the  respective  specifica- 
tions were  based,  together  with  those  specifications ;  not  only  the 
presentment,  but  all  that  out  of  which  it  was  made  up ;  not  only 
the  "  crimes"  of  the  respondent,  as  the  Bishop  is  pleased  to  charac- 
terize these  ex  parte  accusations,  embodied,  but  the  several  and 
separate  parts  whence  that  embodiment  resulted. 

The  paper  is  the  record  of  the  presenters  made  at  the  time  of 
their  session.  Tlie  charges,  it  will  be  observed,  ax'e  "  Immorality 
and  a  violation  of  Ordination  vows." 

Readers  will  see  that  the  specifications  are  of  two  classes ;  one 
having  regard  to  and  depending  chiefly  on  A.  C.  Becker,  the  key 
to  whose  opposition,  Avith  that  of  his  ftmiily,  is  presented  in  Appen- 
dix, M ;  the  other  having  regard  to  and  depending  chiefly  on  a  la- 
dy, Avhose  position  in  the  case  sufficiently  indicates  that  an  inde- 
pendence on  the  part  of  the  respondent  of  an  accustomed  dictation 
in  the  parish  is  their  basis. 

And  it  must  be  obvious  to  all,  that  the  whole  is  as  a  family  jar, 
in  which  each  in  his  fret,  with  what  measure  of  impropriety  shall 
not  be  here  stated,  tells  of  the  other  whatever  may  have  been  dis- 
closed in  the  confidence  of  friendship,  or  familiarly  said  or  done 
under  the  fancied  protection  of  its  sanctities. 

The  "  prefixed"  ''  instructions  from  the  Right  Rev.  the  Bish- 
op," who  was  in  Cliicago  through  the  whole  tune  these  grave  mat- 
ters were  acquiring  the  solemn  and  imposing  form  in  which  they 
were  presented,  aiding  by  his  counsel,  from  time  to  time,  have  not 
been  received.  It  is  only  known,  that  "  to  the  persons  therein 
named,"  consisting  of  seven  laymen,  with  the  Rev.  Rector  of  St. 
James'  Church  in  the  accustomed  position  of  chairman,  "  the  Bishop 
stated  that  things  had  come  to  his  knowledge  touching  the  charac- 
ter of  Mr.  W.  which  demanded  his  stay  in  town  untU  the  matter 
should  be  set  at  rest,  and  he  be  acquitted  or  condemned." 


48 

Four  laymen,  among  those  "  persons,"  were  accounted  friends  of 
the  respondent.  The  reasons  for  their  concurrence  in  the  present- 
ment were  stated  by  them  soon  after,  in  a  letter  to  the  Bishop, 
which  >vill  appear,  in  its  place,  in  this  connection. 

Matthew  xviii.  15-17,  was  overlooked  and  neglected  in  this  case, 
as  in  that  which  has  already  been  submitted.  The  paternal  and 
fraternal  duties  therein  pointed  out,  were  unperformed.  The  re- 
spondent was  unwarned  of  what  was  going  on  with  respect  to  him 
during  the  entire  session  of  the  presenters.  And  this  notwith- 
standing his  nearness  to  the  house  at  which  his  Right  Rev.  Father 
in  God  stopped,  and  the  fact  that  he  saw  him  within  that  time. 
That  it  all  took  place  subsequent  to  the  events  stated  in  the  note  on 
page  31,  may  suffice  to  be  said  till  the  key  shall  be  finally  given. 

The  paper  containing  the  charges  and  specifications  in  the  pre- 
sentment of  1844,  now  considered,  with  the  statements  out  of  which 
they  were  made,  which  has  been  mentioned  as  having  come  into 
the  hands  of  the  respondent,  is  as  follows, — with  the  exception  that 
under  the  head  of  "  Remarks,"  is  matter  in  answer  or  explana- 
tion now  added  by  the  respondent : 

In  pursuance  of  instructions  from  the  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Illinois 
hereto  prefixed,  the  persons  therein  named  assembled  in  the  Vestry-room 
of  St.  James'  Church,  on  Thursday  the  Gth  day  of  June,  and  proceeded  to 
investigate  the  charges  submitted  to  their  consideration  by  J.  H.  Kinzie 
and  A.  C.  Becker,  Esqrs.,*  under  the  following  heads  or  specifications, 
to  wit: 

First,  Immnralilj/ — In  that  in  reference  to  an  altercation  between  Mr. 
Walker  and  Mr.  Becker  on  Clarke  street,  Mr.  Walker  told  Messrs.  Kinzie, 
Strail,  and  Hamilton  that  Becker  called  him  "  a  damned  liar."  (B.'s 
charge.) 

Mr.  Becker  called — States  that  he  did  not  call  Mr.  Walker  "  a 
damned  liar,"  and  used  no  profane  language  on  that  occasion. 

A.  C.  Becker. 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie  called — States  that  Mr.  AValker  told  witness  that  during 
the  altercation  alluded  to,  Mr.  Becker  called  him,  Walker,  "  a  damned 
liar."  J.  II.  Kinzie. 

An  affidavit  signed  by  J.  J.  Stewart  was  submitted,  marked  A.f 

Mr.  Strail  called — States  that  immediately  after  the  altercation,  Mr. 
Walker  called  at  his  store  and  said  Becker  had  called  him  "  a  damned 
liar,"  "  cursed  Uar,"  or  words  of  like  import. 

Remarks.— The  matter  alleged  in  the  specification  is  re-affirmed,  with  the  addition 
that  Becker  at  the  same  time  said,  "  If  it  were  not  for  your  profession,  1  would  give  you 
a  d — d  thrashinor." 

It  is  in  the  testimony  of  a  witne.s8to  whom  Becker  himself  spoke  of  the  interview  im- 
mediately after,  that  he  used  profane  language  in  giving  his  account  of  it. 

The  "  altercation"  was  as  follows : 

The  respondent  was  passing  down  one  of  the  streets  of  Chicago,  on  the  side-walk, 
when  he  was  suddenly  interrupted  by  A.  C.  Becker,  who,  stepping  in  before  him,  said, 
"  Sir,  have  you  received  a  communication  from  me  on  the  subject  of  an  anonymous  let- 
ter you  have  received  ?"  The  reply  was,  "  I  have,  sir."  Becker  then  said,  •'  Have  you 
retracted  your  charges  that  I  am  the  author  of  it  ?"  To  which  it  was  replied, "  I  have 
neither  affirmed  nor  denied  any  thing  on  the  subject,  further  than  my  own  belief  and 
that  of  others,  formed  upon  a  carelul  comparison  and  examination  of  the  hand  writing 
of  the  letter."  Then  followed  from  Becker  the  language  which  the  specification  affirm* 
the  respondent  ascribed  to  him,  with  the  addition  heretofore  given. 

The  respondent  made  no  reply,  but  continued  on  his  walk  till  he  met  Messrs.  Strail 
snd  Hamilton,  to  whom  be  related  the  assault  that  had  been  made  upon  bim 

•An  initial  letter  following  each  eharge  will  indicate  who  preferred  it. 
t  This  affidavit  the  recpondent  has  not. 


49 

Second,  LiiinomlUif — In  that  Mr  Walker  told  Mr.  Kinzie  that  Mrs. 
Becker  had  severely  censured  Mrs.  Kiiizle's  conduct  at  the  parsonage,  and 
expressed  herself  to  have  been  tempted  to  iuilict  personal  cnastisement  on 
Mrs.  Kinzie.     (B.'s  charge.) 

Jno.  II.  Kinzie  called — States  that  Mr.  Walker  told  witness  Mrs.  Becker 
said  she  was  so  indignant  at  the  conduct  ol"  tlie  ladles,  that  she  wanted  to 
choke  tlieiu  or  shake  tliem.  Jxo.  H.  Kinzie. 

Mr.^:  IJecker  called — States  she  did  not  tell  Mr.  Walker  any  thing  of 
the  kind.  S.  C.  Beckeh. 

,1/w.s  (.%trlof((^  Whiting  called — States  she  was  present  at  the  conA*ersa- 
tion  between  Mrs.  Becker  and  Mr.  Walker,  and  heard  no  such  remarks 
from  Mrs.  Becker.  C.  L.  Wuitin'G. 

Remarks.— The  allegation  studiously  leaves  out  Mr.  Becker  as  authority  given  by  the 
resijondcnt  lor  wluit  he  is  represented  as  having  allirmed  of  Jlrg.  Becker.  Let  this  be 
supplied,  and  tliespeciricatiou  ivill  present  the  truth  almost  liturally. 

Becker  stated  tlie  same  to  one  of  tlie  presenters,  and  to  several  others.  Sherwood  te«- 
tilied,  in  his  depofition  for  this  case,  as  follows  :— "  I  heard  Mr.  Becker  say  that  his  wife 
was  at  t!ie  meetinj^  at  the  parsonaiije,  and  entirely  disapproved  of  the  conduct  of  Mrs. 
Kinzie.     I  told  it^to  J[r.  VV.,  I  believe,  and  to  a  f;"ood  many  others." 

In  the  deposition  of  another  witne.ss  is  the  following: — -'Mr.  Becker  said  that  Mrs. 
Becker  fait  very  indignant,  and  was  tempted  to  take  Mrs.  M.  and  Mrs.  Jiiuzie  by  th« 
jieck  and  put  them  oiit  of  tlio  door." 

The  same  wiis  said  by  Becker  to  two  others,  besides  the  respondent. 

Ihe  athdavit  of  Mrs.  W.  on  the  subject  is  subjoined.  It  is  as  follows  : 
"Mrs.  Alida  K.  Walker  maketh  oath,  that  in  the  afternoon  of  the  sixth  of  November, 
1813,  after  the  meetiuj5  of  ladies  'at  the  jiarsona^e,'  Mr.  Becker  called  at  the  house 
while  the  family  ivere  at  tea  ;  that  he  came  immediately  to  the  table,  on  invitation,  and 
at  once  said  to  Mr.  W., '  Well,  how  did  it  •;o  .'  How  did  it  go  at  the  meeting?'  To 
which  Mr.  W.  replied,  •  Ask  Mrs.  Becker  :  I  will  abide  her  jutlgment ;'  that  to  tnis  Mr. 
Becker  rejoined,  '  1  have  asked  her  about  it.'  Upon  which  Mr.  W.  asked, '  What  did 
she  say?'  that  to  this  Mr.  Becker  re))lied, '  Mrs.  B.  felt  indignant,  very  indignant,  and 
was  templed  to  take  Mrs.  31.  and  Mrs.  li.  by  the  neck,'  (or  shoulders,  which  is  not 
recollected,)  'and  put  them  out  of  the  door  ;'  that  he  then  turned  to  this  deponwit,  and 
said, 'Why!  Mrs.  W.,  how  could  you  stand  it?    Mrs.  B  could  not  have  done  so.' 

'\ALIDA  R.  WALKER." 

"  Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  mc  this  22d  day  of  December.  A  D.  1846. 

"  GEO.  DAVIS,  Clk.  Co.  Com.  Court." 

Becker,  at  this  time,  was  professedly  with  the  respondent,  and  opposed  to  Mrs.  K. 
in  an  issue  which  she  had  just  made  with  him.  Becker,  before  the  presenters,  stat«d 
that  issue,  in  its  effect  on  the  respondent,  tr)  be,  that  ■'  Mrs.  K.  should  rule  the  parish 
no  longer  as  she  had  done  for  nine  years.    Either  he  or  she  would  be  rector." 

•  Third,  Immorality — In  that  at  ]\Ir.  Becker's  house  in  November  last, 
Mr.  Walker  drank  one-third  of  a  bottle  of  claret  and  one  hall"  bottle  of 
Madeira  wine.     (B.'s  charge.) 

Mrs.  Bcclcer  called — States  she  was  present,  and  the  specification  is 
perfectly  true.  S.  C.  Becker. 

Miss  Ckarlolfe  Wkilinfj  Ci\\\ed — States  that  she  remembers  Mr.  AValkftr's 
dining  at  Mr.  Becker's  in  Nov.  last,  and  thinks  he  drank  half  a  bottle  of 
Madeira  and  some  claret.  C.  L.  Whiting. 

Fourlh,  Immoralili/ — In  that  at  supper  at  Mr.  Becker's  house  in  De- 
cember last,  Mr.  Walker  drank  very  nearly  a  rpiart  of  Madeira.  Mr. 
Tuckerman  remarking  at  the  time  to  his  sister,  "I  think  the  parson  has 
taken  too  much."     (B.'s  charge.) 

Mrs.  Becker  called— States  that  Mr.  Walker,  with  Jlr.  Tuckerman  and 
Mr.  Warner,  and  her  husband,drank  two  bottles  and  a  half  of  Madeira  wine. 
Mr.  Warner  drank  very  little,  not  being  well.  Her  brother  remarked  to  her 
he  thought  the  parson  ha,d  rlrank  too  much.  She  replied, "  I  trust  not."  Mr. 
Tuckerman  said,  "  You  will  find  it  so."  Mr.  AValkcr  drank  more  than 
gentlemen  usually  do  at  her  table,  and  more  than  her  husband  was  in  the 
habit  of  doing.     Thinks  he  drank  nearly  a  decanter  full. 

S.  C.  B-ECKER. 

3Ir.  Tuckerman  called — States  he  remcmbei'S  the  time  spoken  of. 
Thinks  Mr.  Walker  drank  a  larger  proportion  than  either  of  the  others 

7 


50 

at  the  table.  Thinks  he  drank  two-tliinls  of  a  bottU?  of  wine,  either  sher- 
ry or  Madeira ;  does  not  remember  which.  They  sat,  perhaps,  one  and  a 
half  hours  at  tlie  table.  He  remarked  to  his  sister  that  Mr.  Walker  had 
taken  too  much.  Thought  Mr.  Walker's  example  a  very  bad  one,  espe- 
cially to  his  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Becker. 

L.  TUCKERMAX. 

AFixa  Charlotte  Whiting — Thinks  Mr.  Walker  drank  as  much  as  any  of 
the  other  gentlemen  at  the  table.  She  counted  five  glasses  that  he  drank 
of  Madeira  or  sherry.  Cannot  say  whether  he  drank  one  or  more  glasses 
in  addition  to  the  five.  C  L.  Whiting. 

A.  C.  Becker  states  that  at  the  supper  at  his  house  in  December  last, 
Mr.  Walker  drank  very  nearly  a  (juart  of  IMadeira ;  it  may  have  been 
two  or  three  glasses  less  than  a  quart.  That  witness  and  'Mr.  Walker 
drank  after  the  others  left  off  drinking.  Mr.  Walker  did  not  refuse  to 
drink  when  asked.  Thinks  he,  witness,  should  have  stopped  sooner  if 
Mr.  Walker  had  declined.  It  was  his  custom  to  fill  for  his  guests  before 
his  own  glass,  as  he  did  in  this  instance.  A.  C.  Beckek. 

Remarks.— Specifications  3d  and  4th  are  denied,  in  so  far  as  they  charge  excess  upon 
the  respondent ;  and  against  the  assertions  ot  Becker  and  his  family,  5Irs.  B.,  iliss  W., 
and  his  brother-in-law,  Mr.  T.,  tlic  resiiondent  would  submit  all  that  is  known  of  him 
through  his  whole  life  on  the  subject  of  wine-drinking. 

Appendix,  M,  will  probably  satisfy  as  to  the  motives  which  prompted  these  charges. 

It  deserves  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  specifications  and  witnes.«es  are  confined  to 
a  single  house.  If  the  respondent  wore  in  any  degree  justly  obnoxious  to  a  charge  of 
drinking,  would  it  not  have  been  elsewhere  discovered  and  known,  and  would  not 
other  occasions  and  witnesses  have  been  adduced?  In  preferring  the.se  charges,  have 
not  the  presenters,  in  effect,  declared  the  respondent  innocent  of  other  similar  offences? 
If  this  be  so  ;  then,  in  view  of  the  position  oi  ]5ecker  and  his  family  with  respect  to  the 
respondent,  he  feels  that  he  may  justly  claim  that  his  eutii-e  innocence  be  concluded. 

Fifth,  Immorality. — Mr.  Walker  told  ^Mr.  Becker  repeatedly  of  his  be- 
ing a  decided  Puseyite,  and  that  he  intended  to  engraft  the  principles, 
doctrines,  and  practices  of  the  Oxford  Tractarians  in  the  parishes  here. 
This  he  subsequently  denied.     (B.'s  charge.) 

Mr.  Becker  called — States  that  in  sundry  conversations  with  Mr. 
Walker  he  avowed  himself  to  be  a  decided  Pusej-ite,  and  that  it  was  his 
intention  to  introduce  gradually  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Ox- 
ford Tractarians  in  the  parishes  here.  A.  C.  Beckee. 

Mrs.  Kinzie  called — States  that  Mr.  Walker  told  witness  that  he  had 
said  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Patterson  he,  Walker,  was  a  red-hot  Puseyite, 
and  he  now  knew  what  he  had  to  depend  on.*  Mr.  Walker  never  denied 
to  her  that  he  had  made  such  assertion. 

Mr.  Walker  told  witness  that  he,  W.,  was  one  of  a  band  of  young  cler- 
gymen in  New  York  who  had  promised  to  sustain  ISIr.  Newman,  and  that 
he  had  written  to  him  to  that  effect.  That  Mr.  Walker's  name  had  been 
particularly  mentioned  to  Mr.  Newman,  and  that  he,  Mr.  N.,  had  prom- 
ised to  write  to  Mr.  Walker.  Juliette  A.  Kixzie. 

Mr.  Iluhhle  Johnson  called — States  that  last  winter  at  Capt.  Russell's 
office,  he,  Mr.  Walker,  denied  ever  having  acknowledged  himself  to  be  a 
Puseyite.  Capt.  Russell  asked  him  if  he  was  a  Puseyite.  He  said  he 
was  not. 

Kemarks.— The  denial  charged  in  the  specification  is  repeated  and  maintained. 

Let  it  be  called  to  mind,  that  at  this  date  the  Carey  ordination,  &c.,  and  Dr.  Pusey's 
sermon  on  the  Eucharist,  were  fresh  topics  of  interest  and  excitement.  In  his  inter- 
course with  various  classes,  these  and  kindred  subjects  were  frequently  brought  to 
the  notice  of  tlie  respondent,  and  his  own  views  sought  to  be  educed.  At  such  times, 
whenasked,"  Are  you  a  Puseyite?"— he  has  i)ften  replied  thus,— and  this  has  been  his 
fullest  admission  on  the  subject,— "If  to  receive  the  teachings  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  is  PuEeyism,then  I  am  a  Puseyite."    To  the  Rct.  Mr.  Patterson,  Pastor  of  the 

•  In  the  deposition  of  the  same  witness,  and  snch,  cloubtles«,  is  the  meaning  here,  ft 
is.-"  that  he  and  Ut.  P  now  knew  the  ground  which  they  stood  upon  in  relation  to 
each  other,  or  words  tu  that  eflVof  ■' 


01 

■Second  Presbyterian  Society  in  Chicago,  lie  once  said  what  the  witness  alleges,  but  in 
this  connection ;— Mr.  r.  said  of  ceitain  views  wliicli  the  respondent  had  dropped, 
"  Wliv,  that  is  I'useyism — red-hot  l*u:^eyism  !"  to  which  tlie  reply  was,  ''Very  well; 
then  1  am  a  red-hot  I'useyite."  This  was  re|)eated  to  Airs.  K.;  and  hence  the  partial 
statement  above  given  in  support  of  the  sijecitication. 

In  aliirniing  that  Mr.  1'.  now  knew  upon  what  ground  he  and  the  res))ondent  rela- 
tively stood,  the  respondent  had  respect  not  onlv  to  what  is  here  related,  but  to  a  letter 
which  had  just  before  been  addressed  to  the  liev.  Mr.  Basconi,  with  others,  among 
whom  very  prominently  was  the  Kev.  Jlr.  P.,  which  is  as  follows : — 

"  Rev.  Mr.  Bascoh,  and  others. 
"  Gtntlemtn  : 

"  Were  there  no  other  cause  for  my  not  meeting  with  you  this  evening,  in  my  health 
would  be  found  ample  reason  to  prevent  it.  A  threatened  lever  has  kept  me  to  my  bed 
throughout  the  day.  But,  if  this  were  not  so,  allow  me  j)lainly  to  .»ay,  that  there  are 
such  moral  imix^diinents  in  the  wav  as  would  efleetually  i)reclude  my  "being  with  you. 
These  are  to  be  found  in  those  ecclesiastical  diderences  between  us,  which  lead  lis  to 
pursue  courses  well  nigh  antaj^onist  to  each  other  for  the  accomplishment  of  those  moral 
and  religious  ends  which  we,  I  doubt  not,  with  eoual  honesty  a)id  earnestness,  are  en- 
daivoring  to  promote.  The  view  which  Kpiscopaliaus  entertain  of  the  organization  of 
the  Church,  and  of  Christian  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship,  so  differs  from  that  of 
thoi*  wlio  are  not  with  them,  and  this  diflerence  so  binds  their  consciences,  as  to  make 
it  impossible  for  them  to  unite  with  others  in  the  manner  and  for  the  objects  now  pro- 
posed, yucli  a  union  would  involve  the  recognition  of  orders  not  admitted  by  uf>,  the 
sanction  of  doctrines  not  approved,  and  the  promotion  of  a  worship  which  opposes  our 
view  of  expediency  and  duty.  The  object  you  have  in  view  commends  itself  at  once  to 
our  understanding  and  our  affections.  'J"hc  means  by  %vhich  that  object  should  be  pro- 
moted, we  conscientiously  believe,  are  to  be  found  in  that  '  Church'  which  is  '  founded 
upon  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone;'  to 
this,  tlierefore,  that  we  may  not  depart  from  the  'Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,' 
must  we  limit  our  efforts  for  its  promotion.  What  I  can  do,  througli  the  Church,  lor 
the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  Seamen,  will  be  cheerfully  done  :  and,  as  evidence 
of  my  good  will  in  this  regard,  I  now  offer  to  officiate  for  them  in  my  church  gratuitous- 
ly, twice  in  the  week,  on  tiie  evening  of  each  Sunday  and  that  of  any  other  day  in  the 
week  that  may  suit  their  convenience. 

While  we  have  to  difl'er  thus  much  religiously,  gentlemen,  it  will  give  me  pleasure  to 
be  one  with  you  socially,  and  to  be  free  m  the'interchange  of  the  courtesies  of  private 
life.  You  will,  I  am  sure,  appreciate  the  frankile.ss  of  this  .statement,  with  the  addition 
that  the  views  herein  expre-ssed  govern  me  in  regard  to  all  religious  movements  which 
are  carried  on  by  a  professed  union  of  all  denominations  of  Clu'istians. 
"  I  am,  gentlemen, 

"  Most  respectfully  and  truly, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"  W.  F.  WALKER. 

"Chicago,  Oct.  20, 1843." 

Upon  the  copy  of  this  letter  retained,  there  was  made  at  the  time  the  following, 

KoTE.— The  occasion  of  the  above  letter  was  this  :  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bascom  called  on  me 
yesterday,  the  19th  inst.,  and  invited  me,  on  behalf  of  himself  and  "  the  different  min- 
isters in  the  city,"  to  meet  them  at  his  house  this  evening  to  co-operate  with  them  in 
arrangements  for  a  public  meeting  of  "  persons  of  all  denominations''  to  awaken  an  in- 
terest m  behalf  of  Seamen,  and  to  raise  means  for  the  erection  of  a  "Bethel,"  and  the  sup- 
port of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Roulette  (Prosbyterian)  as  preacher  in  it.  Thinking  my  reasons 
lor  not  assenting  might  not  be  appreciated,  and  so  be  misrepresented,  I  waived  the  pre- 
sentment of  them  to  Mr.  Bascom,  informing  him  that  he  should  hear  from  me  in  the 
course  of  the  following  day,  in  fuKilment  of  which  this  letter  was  sent. 

That  the  respondent  received  the  views  of  Mr.  Kewman  so  far  as  they  approved  them- 
selves as  Catholic,  and  declared  hi?  determination  to  abide  by  them,  and  so  support  Mr. 
N.,  is  true.  His  confidence  in  Mr.  N.  was  such,  that  he  was  ready  to  repel  with  the  con- 
fidence with  which  the  same  was  once  done  by  the  sound  and  accomplished  Bishop  of 
New  Jersey,  the  imputation  that  he  was  looking  with  desire  towards  Rome. 

All  that  there  ever  was  of  the  "band  of  young  clergymen,"  and  of  the  respondent 
in  connection  with  Mr.  Newman,  is  in  the  following  from  a  letter  received  trom  the 
Key.  James  C.  Richmond,  bearing  date 

"  Oxford,  January  1, 1842,        ) 
"  Mr.  Newman's  Study,  5  P.  31.,  in  Oriel  College.     ) 
"  My  Dear  Walker  : 

"A  happy  New  Year  to  you,  and  the  Troy  boys  all."  (By  Troy  boys  was  understood 
a  number  of  young  clergymen,  friends  of  the  writer,  then  in  and  around  Troy,  who 
held  common  or  similar  theological  views.) 

******* 

"This  morning,  accidentally.  I  went  into  St.  Mary's  Church,  and  there  I  heard  a  man 
reading,  and,  as  soon  as  I  looked  at  him,  1  knew  him  to  be  Mr.  Newman  :  and  here  I 
am.  in  nis  very  ,ii(7)!c<i/»;  sa)K(or»m,  just  in  the  very  heart  of  the  way  called  'heresy,' 
wluch  is  shaking  the  Church  for  good  or  for  evil. 

******* 

''After  the  service, at  the  door  of  the  large  Vestry-room,  I  met  him. 

'Mr.  Newman?'    He  bowed.    'I  bring  you  the  congratulations  of  the  New  Year  of 

i*ome  thiity  young  men  and  others  in  America.' He  sliook  hands 

with  me  in  tiie  most  cordial  manner.  I  told  him  of  the  interest  awakened  in  the  U.  S., 
and  of  the  use  the  conclusion  of  his  Lecture — (delivered  to  16  women  and  8  men  ;  .it 
daily  prayers  be  has  less, — encouragement  and  comfort  for  us  brethren.) —  might  be  in 
undeceiving  those  who  misunderstood  him.  &c.  He  was  much  gratified,  and  begged  i 
would  dine  with  him.  I  bade  him  good  morning,  and  went  to  deliver  other  letters,"  &c. 


"  At  6,  you  will  see.  (by  date  )  1  was  in  liis  «liiily;  niul  lu-  I.('{;:m-(1  me  to  n-iniiin  \\\n\e 

he  praparuil  for  dinner lit-  left  ine  tui  nuniiti-s.     \Vlien  lie  returned,  1 

■wrote  down  at  his  rc'iuest,  Kev.  W.  F.  W. :  Uevd>.  B..  and  C  .  uiid  E.,  &c  .  as  bcii\g 
'  gomeof  tnc  stirring  men  of  "  pff u.'m'',  or  Catholic,  old  or  new  views,  '  which  ever  epithet 
yoTJ  please,  Mr.  N  '  said  I. 

"I  told  him  that  you  were  all  as  much  again  on  the  qui  rivr  to  pet  every  thing  from 
Oxford  as  the  people  of  England  are.  He  caid  it  would  he  a  jfreat  encouragement  to 
the  young  men,  cowed  here  by  authority,  to  hear  ol  symjiathy  in  a  distant  part  of  the 
Church. 

******* 

"  You  will  psobably,  some  day,  have  letter."*  direct  from  Newman,  or  some  of  ;/if  party, 
('pshaw  I  y«u  say,)  in  consequence  of  my  visit. 

******* 

"  Take  notice,  the  first  part  of  this  Icttei-  is  written  with  Jlr  .'Newman's  pen.  AVhen  1 
a.iked  him  for  it,  he  laughed,  and  said, '  Vou  had  better  take  a  new  one  ;  I'm  afraid  it's 
a  very  bad  pen.'  " 

******  * 

"When  I  wrote  the  two  other  letters,  I  meant  them,  as  tliis,  for  t)ie  whole  ot  my 
friends  in  Troy,  and  the  Trey  boys. 

(Signed)  KICHMOND." 

The  account  of  Mr.  Newman  which  the  body  of  the  letter  from  which  the  above  ex- 
tracts are  made  contains,  is  so  remarkable  as  to  have  given  it  great  interest  at  the  time  , 
and  causes  it,  when  5Ir.  N.  was  so  much  before  the  Church,  to  ue  often  spoken  of  by  the 
respondent  among  his  friends 

The  following,  from  the  deposition  of  Mrs.  K.,  may  possibly  serve  to  connect  the 
above  with  what  she  asserts  was  said  to  her,  as  near  u&  memory  may  be  supposed  to  be 
faithful : 

Ck)D5BEi,. — "  You  have  alluded  to  a  band  of  young  clergymen,  whom  you  state  Mr. 
W.  said  had  written  promising  to  sustain  Mr.  N.  m  his  doctrines;  that  Mr.  \Y.  had 
reason  to  know  that  his  name  had  been  particularly  mentioned  to  3Ir.  N.,  and  that  Mr. 
W.  was  then  expecting  a  letter  from  him;  let  me  here  ask  you,  whether,  about  that 
time,  Mr.  W.  ever  mentioned  to  you  the  name  of  the  Rev.  James  C.  Richmond,  and 
whether  Mr.  W.  did  not  read  to  yon  a  letter  or  letters  he  had  received  from  Mr.  B,.,  or 
tell  you  the  contents  of  such  letter  or  letters  ? 

Mas.  K.— "  It  is  possible  that  Mr.  W.  may  have  quoted  to  me,  though  I  did  not  see 
the  letter;  I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  it." 

The  respondent  regrets  to  occupy  himself  thus  with  what  may  seem  to  m.iny  simply 
tattle ;  but  as  a  mountniu  of  "criines"'  ha.«  been  attempted  to  be  built  u])  out  of  such 
mole-hills,  there  is  no  resource  kit  tor  him  but  to  notice  the  parts,  to  ellect  the  de- 
struction of  the  whole. 

Sixth. — Mr.  Walker  has  charged  A.  C.  Beckei*  with  being  the  -writer  of 
aa  anonymous  letter,  and  upon  his  solemn  denying  in  writing,  refused  to 
retract     (B.'s  charge.) 

Mr.  Jacob  Russell  called — States  that  Mr.  Walker  showed  him  an  anon- 
ymous letter  which  he  said  resembled  Mr.  Becker's  handwriting,  and  that 
he  thought  it  was  from  him.  Becker  denied  it  to  witness,  and  wrote  to 
that  effect  a  respectful  note  to  Mr.  Walker. 

Capt.  Rus.<>eU  called — States  that  Mr.  Walker  brought  to  his  office  an 
anonymous  letter,  which  he  said  he  believed  was  from  Mr.  Becker.  Wit- 
ness was  of  opinion  it  was  Mr.  Becker's  handwriting  until  Mr.  Becker  as- 
sured him  to  tJie  contrary.  Mr.  Walker  charged  the  writing  of  the  let- 
ter u]wn  Becker,  and  expressed  himself  confident  of  it.  Said  there  Aras 
no  doubt  of  it  Becker  wrote  a  note  to  IMr.  Walker  denying  the  imputa- 
tion.    Xhe  letter  is  on  file  marked  G.* 

0  *****  * 

Mr.  Becker  submitted  the  accompanying  affidavit  marked  D,t  denying 
the  authorship  of  said  anonymous  letter,  and  states  that  Mr.  Walker  j^er- 
sated  in  charging  him  with  the  authorship  after  he,  Walker,  had  received 
both  a  written  and  verbal  denial  thereof.  A.  C.  Beckek. 

REM4RK8.— The  respondent  did  not  retract  his  opinion  as  to  who  was  the  "  writer  of 
the  anouvmous  letter' before  the  "  altercation  on  Claike  street,"  (specification  1st;) 
subsequent  to  that  "  altercation"  he  could  not. 

The  "  anonymous  letter"  itself  had  no  special  importance ;  it  was  simply  a  cowardly 
attack  for  a  suppo.«ed  endeavor  on  the  nart  of  the  respondent  to  have  a  young  man  who 
was  a  candidate  for  Orders,  then  in  Chicago,  appointed  by  the  Bishop,  lay-reader  for 

*  This  letter,  by  some  means  unknown,  got  out  of  the  possession  of  the  respondent 
into  the  hands  of  these  pre.^entcrs  ;  it  lias  not  come  back  with  this  paper. 
t  This  affidavit  is  not  In  the  respondent's  possession. 


53 

St.  James'  C'lnii-cli  attwr  Kasteiv  1«44,  mid  so  put  it  to  a  disadviintage  as  cuui])ared  with 
Tiiulty.  One  nliu  lias  Kitice  buconii'  a  incsciitir,  asstilfii  tliattlu'  iijiiondent  had 
sotiglit  this,  and  took  imioti  iiitorost  in  iiroiiidiciii};  him  on  iiecoiiiit  of  if.  While  the 
fact  is,  the  yoinij;  man  was  appnintc-d  1h>  -i-eadci-  by  tlie  liishop  only  two  days  after  the 
date  of  the  re.spoiident's  institution  as  lii-ctor  of  , St.  James'  Cliurch,  Oct.  3, 1&13.  The 
instrument  of  apijointmeut  is  as  lollows  :— 

"Chicago.  Oct.  3d,  1S43. 
"During  the  pleasure  ofthe  Bishop,  Mr.  r?aiiklin  R.  Ilaffis  hereby  appointed  a  l.ay- 
Jleadcr  in  Chicago,  on  Salt  C'reoJx,  and  on  Anplaines  J{iver,  Id.,  to  be  under  the  direo- 
tion  and  oversight  ofthe  liev.  Mr.  "Walker,  JJeclor  of  St.  .lanu-s'  Clnu-eli,  Cliieago. 

•  I'lilL'K  CHASE,  Bishop  of  Illinois." 

Who  should  rc)>ent  himself  for  the  injurious  suspicion  which  prompted  the  "  anony- 
mous letter,''  and  the  evil  that  ha.s  hence  resulted,  is  not  kuovvn. 

Seventh — In  that  lie  has  usetl  the  name  of  the  Creator  in  a  common  and 
irreverent  manner,  thercliy  violatiiin;  the  3d  couuiiandment    (B.'s  charge.) 

Mr.  A.  C.  Becker  called — States  that  he  has  frequently  heard  Mv. 
Walker  use  his  Maker'.?  name  on  trivial  occa.sions.  In  common  conversa- 
tion, he  freciuently  appealed  to  the  Deity  as  -witness  of  the  truth  of  what  he 
was  saying.  The  expressions  were,  "  God  is  my  witness,"  "  Good  God, 
is  it  possible  !"  Has  not  hoard  him  swear,  but  his  appeals  to  the  Deity 
were  more  frequent  than  he  has  heard  from  any  layman  in  this  country. 

A.  C.  Becker. 

Mr.  Kinzie  does  not  think  he  is  in  the  habit  of  using  the  Lord's  name 
in  vain  on  trivial  occasions.  Has  heard  him  use  such  expressions  as 
"  God  is  my  Judge,"  &c.  Jxo.  H.  Kixzie. 

W.  L.  Whltim]  states  he  has  heard  iMr.  Walker  appeal  to  his  Maker  in 
the  manner  described  by  I^lessrs.  Becker  and  Kinzie,  not  irreverently, 
but  unnecesxarUij.  W.  L.  Whiting. 

REM.4.RKS. — This  specification  is  deemed  to  be  sulficjently  explained  by  the  statements 
on  which  it  is  based.  The  opportunity  is  taken,  however",  to  deny  that  the  expression 
attributed  by  Becker  was  ever  made  by  tlie  respondent. 

It  is  believed  to  be  known  to  all  his  acquaintances,  that  he  is  characterized  by  an  ap- 
propriate reverence  for  sacred  names  and  thincs.  The  statement  made  by  Mrs.  Kinzie, 
but,  because  of  its  not  being  in  the  risht  vein  probably,  not  given  above,  was,  that  she 
was  "  not  aware  that  lie  is  in  the  habit  of  using  the  Lord's  name  on  trivial  occasions." 

Eighth — Violation  of  Ordination  Vows — In  that  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker 
has  not  maintained  and  set  fbi-th  as  much  as  in  him  lay,  quietness,  peace, 
and  love,  especially  amongst  those  committed  to  his  charge,  to  wit: 

That  he  remarked  to  Mi-s.  Ivinzie  on  Saturday  before  Christmas,  that 
"Mrs.  Whiting,  with  her  shallow  mind  and  great  pretensions,  had, 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  affair,  endeavored  to  make  herself  of  a  vast 
deal  more  consequence  than  she  would  ever  succeed  in  doing;"  and  then 
related  some  anecdote  to  prove  how  LIrs.  Whiting  had  endeavored  to  set 
herself  up  for  a  theological  reader.     (B.'s  charge.) 

Mrs.  Kinzie  called — States  that  the  above  specification  is  substantially 
correct.  Thinks  Mr.  Walker  has  not  conducted  towards  his  communi- 
cants as  a  pastor  should  do.  That  there  are  but  few  of  them  of  whom  she 
has  not  heard  liim  speak  disparagingly.  His  conversations  with  witness 
have  not  been  calculated  to  promote  peace  and  good  will,  kind  feelings,  or 
a  high  estimation  of  her  fellow  Christians.  Juliette  A.  Kinzie. 

Capt.  Russell  called — Was  asked  the  question  whether  Mr.  Walker, 
"  when  reviled  he  has  reviled  again  ?"  He  answered,  "  Yes,  in  saying 
many  things  against  members  of  his  Church  calculated  to  produce  harsh 
feelings." 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie  states  lie  knows  of  instances  where  Mr.  Walker  has  vio- 
lated his  ordination  vows,  to  wit :  in  endeavoring  to  create  unpleasant  dif- 
ficulties between  Mrs.  IGnzie  and  Mrs.  Whiting. 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie. 

W.  B.  Ogden  called — When  asked  if  Mr.  Walker  had  violated  his  ordi- 
nation vows,  replied — That  he  thinks  he  has  in  a  wanton  and  intentional 


manner  by -creating  difffrtMiccs  and  din.<t^n.sions  anionirst  liis  parishioners. 
That  he  has  understood  ]Mr.  ^Valke^  to  attempt  creutiug  (lilKrulties  be- 
tween Mrs.  Kinzlc  and  Mrs.  AVhiting,  who  are  bin  authority.  From  wliat 
be  has  seen  and  known  of  i\Ir.  Walker,  be  thinks  thi'  latter  an  improper 
person  to  be  retained  in  tlie  ministry,  because  he  has  used  impi-oper  means 
to  sustain  hnnself'by  exciting  the  prejudices  of  one  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity against  another  when  lie  Ibund  himself  in  difficulty.* 

W.  L.  Whiting  states  he  is  of  opinion  that  Mr.  Walker  has  riolated  his 
ordination  vows,  and  knows  that  his  course  of  conduct  with  reference  to 
his,  Whiting's,  family,  baa  produced  much  dlsfjuiet. 

W.  L.  Whiting. 

Remarks, — Tlie  fcittimony  under  this  specification  was  that  of  Mrs.  K.  alone,  and 
stands  in  )ier  deposition  as  follows: — 

"  I  think  he  has  disturbed  the  quietness,  peace  and  love  amongst  his  parishioners  by- 
speaking  unkindly  of  tlium,— in  stating  lo  ilr.  J5.  that  he  was  pained  at  the  indignity 

with  which  Mrs  K.  treated  Mrs.  W.  in  company And  spoke  in  a  most 

disrespectful  manner  of  Mrs.  W.,  saying,  among  other  tilings,  that  with  her  shallow 
mind  and  great  pretensions,  Mrs.  AV.  hud  endeavored  to  make  herself  of  a  vast  deal 
more  consequence  than  she  «  ould  ever  succeed  in  doing.    ..... 

"  Mr.  W.  related  an  instance  of  a  call  lie  made  upon  Mrs.  W.  Mith  aTract  he  wished 
to  show  to  one  of  her  daughters ;  it  was  by  one  of  the  Oxford  Tract  writers,  or  of  that 
school,  which,  he  was  afraid,  might  not  be  e.xactly  interpreted  riglit  by  them  ;  he  said 
'You  must  bear  in  mind  that  these  Tracts  were  not"de?)gned  for  common  readers.'  Mrs. 
W.  replied,  'I  am  not  a  common  reader.'  Mr.  W.  then  .»a)d.  '  IJut,  Madam,  they  are  de- 
signed for  theological  readers. '  Mrs.  W.  replied,  '  1  am  a  theological  reader.'  'But, 
Sladam,'  said  Mr.  W.,  '  tliey  are  designed  for  the  clergv  ;'  and  Mr.  AV.  made  an  excla- 
mation, expressing  his  wonder  that  Mrs.  W.  would  set  herself  up  in  that  way  for  a  the- 
ological reader 

"We,  Mrs.  W.  and  myself,  were  both  communicants  at  this  time." 

In  the  same  connection,  and  with  reference  to  the  same  matter,  the  following  qties- 
tions  were  asked,  and  answers  returned  : 

"  Q.  Do  you  know,  or  can  you  state  anv  other  instance  in  which  Mr.  ^y.  spoke  dispar- 
agingly of  other  communicants  or  parishioners  of  St.  James'  Church,  while  he  was 
Itector  thereof?    If  so,  when  and  whom  ? 

"A.  1  do  not  know  whether  M)-.  W.  designed  to  be  disrespectful.  I  have  heard  him 
nse  such  expressions  as  these, — '  Do  tell  nie  if  that  is  the  best  stuff  you  can  tind  to  make 
V^estryraen  of ;'  that  there  was  but  three  Churchmen  in  his  Church  :  and  s]>eak  harsh- 
ly of  the  opinions  which  diflered  from  his  own,  expressed  by  his  parisliioners.  Mr.  W. 
expressed  himself  very  much  di.ssatislied,  when  he  had  propased  preaching  a  course  of 
sermons  upon  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  to  Mr.  S.;  Mr.  8.  rather  objected,  and  thought 
it  would  not  answer  to  enter  at  once  upon  those  subjects.  Mr.  W.  repeated  Mr.  .S.'s 
words,  shrugging  his  shoulders,  saying, '  IVople  were  so  timid  and  so  afraid.'  Mr  \V. 
imitated  Mr.  tj.  m  his  way  of  speaking. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  or  can  you  state  other  instances  where  Mr.  W.  spoke  contemptu- 
ously or  uncharitably  of  other  communicants  of  his  Church? 

•' A.  Mr.  W.  on  one  occasion,  .  .  .  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  baptism  accord- 
ing to  law  ?  I  told  him  I  did  not  understand  him.  He  then  repeated  a  conversation 
he  had  had  with  Mrs.  Whiting  the  day  before,  at  Jlrs.  S's,  in  which  Mrs  W.  had  made 
the  remark,  that '  she  believed  in  any  baptism  that  was  according  to  law.'  Mr.  W. 
laughed  so  loud  and  talked  so  vehemently  about  the  absurdity  ofthe  answer,  that  it 
seemed  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  passers  by."' 

"  I  told  Mr.  "W.that  Miss  Emma  AVlnting  was  a  Unitarian.  I  had  it  from  her  own 
lips;  openly  and  avowedly  so.  Miss  E.  AV.  made  no  more  of  a  secret  of  it  than  I  did 
of  being  an  Episcopalian.  I  never  said  that  Mrs.  W.  favored  Unitarianism,  for  she  was 
grievedthat  her  daughter  was  one  ;  that  Mrs.  W.  fold  ine  that  she  was  a  decided  I'l-es- 
oyterian,  and  had  been  educated  so;  and  that  Bishop  Stuart,  of  Canada,  had  admit- 
ed  her  to  the  communion,  though  she  had  informed  him  of  it  her  herself 

It  may  be  well  to  note  the  remarks  under  the  10th  specification  in  connection  with 
what  is  here  given. 

NlntJi. — Mr.  Walker  has  abused  the  confidence  extended  to  him  in  his 
clerical  capacity,  by  repeating  conversations  and  ridiculing  them  in  pub- 
lic.    (K.'s  charge.) 

A.  C.  Becker  called — States  that  on  the  occasion  of  the  death  of  Beck- 
er's child,  Mr.  Walker  abused  their  confidence  and  hurt  their  feelings  by- 
ridiculing,  in  conversation  with  others,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Becker's  wishes  ixx 
regard  to  the  burial  service.  A.  C.  Becker. 

•The  person  who  thus  judged  of  the  respondent  was  at  the  time  a  member  of  the  fam- 
ily of  Whiting;  has,  perhaps,  read  the  Ordinal,  but  is  in  no  wise  connected  with  the 
Church,— not  even  by  baptism.  lie  has  certain  property  interests  in  the  vicinity  of 
St.  James'  Church,  by  which  he  is  rcgjirded  as  being  in  an  especial  manner  influenced 
in  his  sympathies  with  that  side  of  the  river. 


66 

W.  B.  Ogden  states,  he  mot  Mi-.  Walker  near  Becker's  house,  who  said, 
in  his  usual  rapid  manner,  that  ^Ir.  and  Mrs.  Becker  had  some  very  ri- 
diculous notions,  "  very  ridiculous,  indeed,"  which  he  had  settled  or  re- 
moved. Did  not  then  know  to  wliat  he  had  reference  from  Mr.  Walker. 
It  was  between  the  death  and  burial  of  their  child. 

A  C  Becker  being  asked  by  ^h:  Kellogg  whether  he  proposed  to  bring 
forward  further  witnesses  to  sustain  this  charge,  he,  Becker,  pledged  him- 
self to  do  so,  if  necessary,  herealler.  A.  C.  Becker. 

Eemares. — It  will  be  noticed  how  logically  the  specification  is  deduced  from  the 
stutemeuts; — a  K^'ieral  charce.  from  a  single  vajjue  anil  almost  unmeaning  case! 

Mrs.  15.,  nurtured  in  the  Lnitarian  system,  had  rciine.sleU  that,  at  the  burial  of  her 
child,  the  accustomed  ceremony  of  dropping  the  earth  be  dispensed  with,  'i'he  respond- 
ent satisfied  her  that  it  was  better  otlierwi.-ie ;  and  then  spoke  of  the  objection,  and  of 
its  having  been  obviated  1  And  this  \va.s  an  abuse  of  '  the  contidence  exteuded  to  him 
in  his  clerical  capacity  !"'    O  tempora  1  O  M»res  1 

Tenth,  Immorality — Tn  asserting  to  Mr.  Bockor  and  Mr.  Kinzic  In  the 
Vestry-room,  on  22d  Dec.  1S43,  that  the  ladies  of  St.  James'  Society 
hissed  and  stamped  at  him  on  the  occasion  of  the  meeting  at  his  house  6tli 
Nov.  preceding.  Mr.  Walker  next  day  attempted  to  explain  by  saying 
he  had  been  told  so,  but  refused  to  give  his  authority.     (K.'s  charge.) 

A.  C.  Becker  called — States  that  Walker  said  to  him,  witness.  In  the 
presence  of  Kinzie  at  the  Vestry-room,  that,  at  the  meeting  at  the  Rec- 
tory, Mrs.  Magill,  Mrs.  Kinzie,  and  ]Miss  Williams  stamped  and  liissed 
while  he.  Walker,  was  addressing  the  ladies.  A.  C.  Becker. 

Mrs.  Kinzie  called — Sa}-s  that  at  the  meeting  at  the  Rectory,  there  was 
no  hissing  or  stamping  by  the  ladies,  to  her  knowledge. 

Juliette  A.  Kinzie. 

Remarks.— To  an  understanding  of  specifications  10th  and  14th,  with  which  also  the 
2d  may  be  connected,  it  is  necessary  to  be  stated,  that  many  professed  friends  of  the 
Church,  feeling  that  the  time  liad  come  for  commencing  the  erection  of  a  church  edi- 
fice on  the  south  side  of  the  Chicago  river,  where  is  by  far  the  largest  portion  of  the 
population  of  the  city,  with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of  separate  services  for  Trinity 
congregation,  agreeably  to  an  understanding  between  both  parishes  and  the  respond- 
ent, at  the  time  he  accepted  the  Kectorsbip  of  the  two.  had  come  forward  and  oiTered 
certain  specific  cotitributions  to  the  object,  provided  the  Ladies'  Society  would  co-op- 
erate and  raise  .$500  for  the  same  ;  and  requested  the  respondent  to  propose  the  subject 
to  the  ladies,  and,  if  possible,  secure  the  desired  co-operation. 

It  is  true  that  a  jealousy  on  the  part  of  some  on  the  north  side  of  the  river,  of  any 
movement  in  favor  of  the  south  side,  had  shown  itself  previously.  A  witness  of  the 
presenters  thus  testified  :  "  I  inferred  there  was  a  jealousy  existing  on  the  part  of  those 
residing  on  the  north  side  of  the  river  towards  the  building  of  a  Church  on  the  south 
side." 

But  as  the  establishment  of  Trinity  Church,  organized,  with  the  approbation  of  the 
Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  8t.  James',  for  the  south  side  of  the  river,*  was  in  the  com- 
pact with  the  respondent,  he  felt  that  good  faith  towards  those  on  the  south  side  of  the 
river,  no  less  than  very  obvioiis  duty,  demanded  him  to  regard  them  as  far  as  duty  to 
the  whole  people  committed  to  his  charge  should  seem  to  require,  and  occasion  .should 
be  given.  He,  therefore,  readily  consented  to  serve  the  interest  named,  by  making  the 
desired  proposal  to  the  ladies  at  an  early  opportunity,  anticipating  no  other  than  a  cor- 
dial and  almost  unanimous  response  to  an  application  so  proper  to  be  made,  and,  if  ac- 

*  The  following  is  a  resolution  which  was  adopted  at  a  meeting  held  June  28, 1842, 
preliminary  to  its  organization  : 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  thi.s  meeting,  it  is  important  and  necessary  to  the 
interests  and  increase  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city,  that  a  Church  be  perma- 
nently established  on  the  south  side  of  the  Chicago  river." 

This  being  approved  by  the  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  St.  James'  Church,  and 
other  persons  connected  with  that  congregation,  the  organization  took  place  on 
the  5th  of  March  next  following.  The  faihire  of  all  efforts  made  to  secure  the  services 
of  a  clergyman  for  the  newparisli.  caused  the  interest  in  it  gradually  to  subside,  till  at 
the  respondent's  arrival  in  Chicago,  Trinity  Church  existed  only  in  name.  But  that 
the  respondent  might  legally  and  canonically  have  the  oversight  of  the  entire  field,  the 
Wardens  and  Vestry 'of  that  Church  invited  him  to  their  spiritual  oversight  in  con- 
junction with  his  rectorship  of  St.  James' ;  both  congregations,  however,  forming  but 
one,  worshiping  in  St.  James'  Church  edifice;  and  it  being  understood,  at  the  same 
time,  between  all  the  parties,that  Trinity  Church  should  receive  some  distinct  services, 
be  revived,  it  possible,  and,  in  due  time,  be  permanently  established. 

(Query.  Does  not  the  resolution  above  throw  some  light  on  the  subject  of  parish 
boundaries  in  Chicago?  Let  this  be  considered  in  connection  with  a  statement  invol- 
ving this  subject  in  the  note  on  page  27.) 


56 

riuiesced  in,  so  proiiii-^iiis;  of  gooil  to  ilie  Master's  ciiusc.  The  contrary,  however,  trans- 
pired. 80  soon  as  it  came  to  be  nnderstooil  that  at  a  };in;ii  niiH-iinj;  of  the  ladies  tho 
liroposal  named  would  be  submitted,  an  u|>i)Osition  to  the  plan  and  tlie  respondent 
urose  among  liis  parisliioiieis  in  the  nortli.  ForeniO!-t  in  this  o|)position  was  Airs.  K., 
who,  till  then,  liud  expressed  herscU',  toucliin;;  tlic  respondent,  in  terms  of  hi-'h  satis- 
faction, nieir  relation  may  be  gathered  from  Mrs.  K.'s  testimony;  it  was  as  iollows  : 
"I  became  aciiiiaiutfd  with  Mr.  \V.  in  1S43.  He  remained  an  innnitc  of  our  family  a 
little  more  tlian  tiirec  weeks.  After  he  left  our  house,  we  frequently  invited  liim 
there.  He  came  to  our  house  more  familiarly  and  intimately  than  any  other  ac- 
iiuaintance." — Her  local  relation  to  St.  James'  Church  is  in  her  testimony  thus:  "St. 
James'  Church  is  opposite  to  our  house;  the  street  divides  us  from  the  Church." — Her 
interior  relation  to  tlie  parish  may  perhaj's  be  inferred  tVom  the  declaration  before  no- 
ticed, attributed  by  lieckcr  to  the  res]>oiident  as  liavini;  letii  made  just  at  this  juncture, 
to  wit.  that'-  he  would  ])ut  Mi-s.  K.  down.  She  should  rule  the  parish  no  longer,  as 
.she  had  done  for  nine  years.     Kither  he  or  she  would  be  Hector." 

At  the  lime  contemplated,  the  pi-oiiosai  which  the  responclcnt  had  been  desired  to 
present  to  the  ladies  was  made.    JVIrs.  J\.  hastestilied  of  it  thus:—"  Mr.  W.  did  in  ray 

inx'fence  propose  to  the  ladies  of  St.  James'  Sewiuf;  Society,  which  at  that  time  em- 
traced  a  number  of  the  ladie*  who,  it  was  sui)posed,  would  become  a  part  of  Trinity 
congregation,  to  go  to  work  vigorously  and  prepiu-e  for  a  Fair,  at  which  be  said  he  liad 
no  doubt  they  could  raise  i^!')W ;  that  with  that  money  they  would  go  to  work  and  lay 
the  foundation  of  Trinity  Church  ;  and  there  was  no  doubt  that  the  gentlemen  would 
use  every  effort  to  complete  it." 

The  manner  in  which  Mrs.  K.  received  the  proposal,  and  tlie  character  of  her  oppo- 
siticjn,  aje  thus  given  by  a  witness  of  the  prcenters  : — ■'  We  had  some  money  on  hand, 
and  a  good  many  articles.  AVe  were  preparing  for  a  Fair,  wlien  we  were  expecting  to 
receive  a  considerable  sum.  Mr.  W.  wi.slied  tiiat  the  money  should  be  approjiriated  to 
the  building  of  a  Church  on  the  south  side  of  the  river.  He  wished  the  ladies  to  co- 
oper:ite,  as  I  understood  it. 

"  1  have  said  that  1  thought  Mrs.  K.  said  loo  much,  and  that  I  did  not  like  to  have  it 
ridiculed — our  having  a  Church  on  this  [the  south]  side  of  the  river." 

"  Mrs.  K.  said  if  the  geutU-nien  were  going  to  appropriate  the  ladies;'  money,  they 
had  better  come  and  cut  out  tJio  aprons  and  work,  and  have  some  knitting."  (.') 

The  meeting  of  the  ladies  at  which  tliis  took  place  being  but  partial,  not  embracing 
the  entire  ladies  of  his  charge,  the  respondent,  on  tliu  Sunday  following,  uotilieda  gen- 
eral meeting  to  be  held  at  the  parsonage  tlie  next  day.  to  allow  him  to  submit  the  pro- 
posal to  and  invite  the  co-operation  ol  all. 

On  Monday  afternoon,  Ts'ov.  fjth,  the  meeting  was  held.  The  respondent  addressed 
the  ladies  pres'-nt  on  the  subject  whicli  had  been  the  means  of  their  assembling,  and 
urged  a  general  anil  united  co-operation  with  the  gentlemen  in  an  ell'ort  to  builil  Trin- 
ity Church ;  insisting  that  sectional  leclings  and  local  interests  should  be  disregarded 
in  view  of  the  char:icter  and  magnitude  of  the  results  sought  to  be  accomiilished  ;  that 
the  division  of  the  city  by  a  email  river  should  not  be  allowed  to  divide  Churchmen  in 
a  great  efloit  for  the  Church,  like  that  proposed.  This  is  the  meeting  referred  to  in  spe- 
cification loth. 

In  the  light  of  what  has  been  stated,  it  may  be  judged  from  testimony  educed  from 
presenters'  witne.s.ses,  wkether  the  respondent  might  not  have  .said  "  that  ladies  hissed 
and  stamped  at  him  on  the  occasion  of  that  meeting  ;"  and,  to  substantiate  tho  asser- 
tion, might  not  have  said  that  others  knew  the  .same,  for  they  had  told  him  so. 

It  is  proper  to  state,  that  what  Mr.  AV.  asserted  to  Jlessrs.  Becker  and  Kinzie  in  the  Ves- 
try-room, (see  specification  ,)was  said  in  answer  to  a  reouest  that  he  would  state  his  causes 
ol  grievance,  with  a  view  to  explanation  and  reeonciliatiou.  It  was  said,  therefore,  aa 
to  the  chief  party  herself— to  3[r.  K.,  that  he  might  state  to  Mrs.  K.  what  were  the  re- 
spondent's views  and  feelings  with  respect  to  thecouise  she  had  taken. 

Sherwood  testified  thus  :— '■  I  heard  ladies,  who  were  present  at  the  meeting,  censure 
Mrs.  K.'s  conduct  at  that  meeting.  I  do  not  remember  any  more  except  my  wife ;  there 
were  others,  but  I  have  foi-'jottcu  who." 

Mrs.  Sherwood  thus  :  '•  I  have  .said  that  ths  manner  of  the  ladies  was  not  respectful." 

Another  witness  thus  :  '•  I  don't  remember  much  about  it,  it  was  so  long  ago.  They 
showed  no  respect  to  Mr.  W." 

Another  thus :  "  I  presume  Mrs.  W.  and  Miss  R.  heard  me  sixjali  of  signs  of  disap- 
probation exhibited  by  the  ladies  towards  Mr.  W.  at  the  meeting  referred  to,  as  I  have 
done  to  others. 

'•  I  heard  Mrs.  JI.,  tapping  the  floor  with  her  foot,  sav, '  Walker  wants  to  be  Bishop 
himself.'    1  consideied  Mrs.  M.'s  conduct  a  very  great  disrespect. 

"  Mr.  W.  said  he  showld  not  think  they  would  allow  a  little  stream,  Chicago  river,  to 
make  any  difference  towards  this  [the  south]  side.  Alter  this  remark,  Mrs.  M.  made 
the  above  remark,  and  tapped  witli  her  foot  as  above  stated.  1  did  not  hear  the  ex- 
pression, '  Shame,  shame  I'  but  I  was  told  it  was  said." 

A  witness  of  the  respondent  testified  with  respect  to  this  last  point  thus :  "When  Mr. 
W.  said  the  ladies  ought  not  to  let  it  appear  that  the  river  would  divide  their  feelings, 
he  was  interrupted  by,  I  think,  **»**»**»  **•**»•»,  saying,  '  For  shame,  Mr.  W.  for 
making  such  a  remark.'    I  sat  ne.xt  to  her." 

The  same  could  have  been  corroborated  by  other  witnesses.  So  much  may  suffice, 
however,  for  a  fair  judgment  on  speciticatiim  lOtli,  and  to  aid  somewhat  iu  the  forma- 
tion of  the  same  on  the  'Zd  and  14th,  and,  perhaps,  some  others. 

Elevenih — Mr.  Walker  asserted  to  Mr.  Becker  that  he  was  pained  to 
see  the  indignity  and  contempt  -with  which  Mrs.  Kinzie  treated  Mrs.  AVhi- 
ting  in  company.  This  he  admitted  that  he  had  said  in  the  meeting  at 
Mr.  Kinzie's  lioiise  iu  the  aflcrnoou  of  the  22d  December,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Jlci'srs.  Rogers,  Saltonstall,  ^^^^iting,  &c. ;  but  the  next  morning 


i>7 

retracted  it,  with  uiauy  otLer  thiugs,  in  coiiversatiou  with  Mrs.  Kinziti, 
on  tlie  ground  that  he  had  not  understood  what  was  attributed  to  him. 
(K.'s  charge.) 

Mrs.  Kinzie  states  that  Mr.  Walker  admitted  his  having  said  that  Mrs. 
Kinzie  had  treated  Mrs.  Whiting  with  contempt  and  indignity.  The 
following  day  he  denied  having  ever  said  what  was  stated  by  Mr.  Becker, 
and  when  reminded  that  he  had  edmitted  it  the  previous  day,  said  he 
would  not  have  done  so,  if  he  had  understood  it. 

Juliette  A.  Kinzie. 

A.  C.  Becker  states  that  Mr.  Walker  expressed  his  surprise  to  him  that 
Mrs.  Whiting  should  so  warmly  sustain  Mrs.  Kinzie  in  her  opposition  to 
him,  Walker,  after  the  indignant  and  contemptuous  manner  in  which 
Mrs.  Whiting  had  been  treated  by  Mrs.  Kinzie,  at  a  party,  when  the 
Bishop  was  present  A.  C.  Beckek. 

Remarks. — The  respondent  did  say  to  Becker,  when  told  that  Mrs.  Whiting  sustained 
Mrs.  Kinzie  against  him,  that  he  was  surprised  at  it,  after  having  herselfbeen  treated 
with  such  disitispect  by  Mrs.  Iv.,  but  a  short  time  before.  When  this  was  complained 
of  by  Mrs.  K.  to  the  respondeat,  (for  IJecker  soon  communicated  it  to  her,)  he  said  that 
«uch  was  his  impre.s.«ion  other  course  towards  Jlrs.  W. ;  but,  as  it  was  a  matter  of  opin- 
ion simply,  if  Mrs.  W.  did  not  so  view  her  conduct,  did  not  feel  that  she  had  been  treat- 
ed contemptuou.sly.,  the  respondent  was  ii.dilferent.  Uis  own  tastes  and  habits  led  him 
to  a  difl'erent  estimate  of  the  case ;  and  he  spoke  of  it  from  his  own  impression.  The  re- 
traction referred  to  is  to  be  found  in  tlie  above  explanation,  and  there  only,  whatever 
may  have  been  Mrs.  K.'s  understanding  of  it. 

It  is  submitted  whether  Mrs.  K.'s  teeling  and  interest  in  this  case,  would  be  most  fa- 
vorable to  a  precise  and  literal  reoollectiou,  such  as  is  professed,  of  conversation*  had 
long  before.  It  is  upon  this  very  exact  memory  that  the  main  points  in  several  of  thes* 
specifications  depend. 

The  following  question  and  answer  from  the  deposition  of  Kinzie,  may  serve  to  show 
that  very  possibly  there  was  smne  foundaUon  for  the  respondent's  impression  : 

"  Q.  Did  you  or  your  family  speak  lightly  to  Mr.  Walker  of  Mrs.  Whiting,  because 
ot  a  certain  matter  in  regard  to  wliich  appeal  was  made  by  Mrs.  Kinzie  to  Bishop 
Chase  ? 

"  A.  There  was  a  question  upon  a  passage  in  the  Bible,  about  which  Mrs.  K.  and 
Mrs.  W-  were  in  conversation  one  evening  at  Mrs.  Magill's,  Bishop  Chase  being  pres- 
«nt.  They  both  agreed  to  leave  it  to  him  to  decide.  He  cttncurred  with  Mrs.  K.  'When 
we  returned  honte  in  the  eveuingj  Mr.  Walker  being  present,  the  subject  was  moved, 
and  remarks  made  both  by  Mrs.  Kinzie  and  Sir.  W.  about  Mrs.  Whiting's  ignorance  or 
the  passage  in  question.    I  do  not  recollect  what  expressions  were  made." 

Twelfth,  Immorality — In  calling  his  Maker  to  witness  that  he  was  not 
on  the  building  committee,  by  directions  of  whom  the  alterations  in  the 
Church  were  made.     (K.'s  charge.) 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie. — A  minute  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Vestry  held  at 
Capt.  Russell's  office  on  the  19th  September,  marked  B,  was  read.*  Mr. 
Kinzie  states  that  this  minute  was  read  to  ]Mr.  Walker ;  that  the  latter 
subsequently  told  witness  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  superintending  al- 
terations in  the  Church,  and  did  not  know  he  was  on  the  committee. 
He,  Walker,  directed  the  alterations,  and  they  were  made  under  his  su- 
perintendence.    Parry  was  the  carpenter  employed. 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie. 

Y 

W.  L.  Whiting  states  that  Mr.  Walker  called  God  to  witness  he  did  not 
know  he  was  on  the  committee  of  alterations,  until  long  after  the  altera- 
tions were  completed.  W.  L.  Whiting. 

W.  W.  Sedionstall  made  some  explanations — States  that  he  was  present 
at  the  Vestry-meeting,  and  was  not  himself  aware  of  Mr.  W.'s  being  on 
the  committee.  Wm.  W.  Saltonstall. 

Mr.  Parry  called — Says  Capt.  RusseU  engaged  him  to  do  the  work 
and  referred  him  to  Mr.  Walker  for  instructions.  Mr.  Walker  took 
charge  of  the  alterations.  Mr.  Kinzie  requested  his  pew  to  be  made  of  a 
certain  size. 

•'-  BxxABEe  —The  case  of  the  respondent  wm  precisely  that  of  Mr  Wm.  W  Saltonstall 
"given  above ;  he  did  not  know  that  he  was  or  the  committee,  but  supposed  that  in  all 

*  This  minute  came  not  to  the  respondent  with  thlp  paper 
8 


58 

ne  did  he  wbs  acting  for  the  coininlttoe,  BRreeably  to  s  request  by  C  apt  Rtusell  that  li« 
would  do  80.  This  was  the  view  wheu  Capt.  R.  eniployea  tliu  tarpcuter,  Parry,  aud 
told  him  to  abide  the  directions  ot  the  respondent. 

There  was  no  complaint  on  tliis  oubject  until  Kinzie's,  Whiting's,  &c.,  fell  out  with 
the  respondent,  when  it  became  an  object  for  Mr.  K.  to  change  tlit-  responsibility  of  hia 
pew  being  made,  in  the  course  of  tlie  alterations,  more  spacious  than  that  of  Whiting, 
of  which  the  Whitinj^s  had  seriously  complained,  by  placing  it  upon  the  respondent. 
This  point  is  providentially  settled  by  the  statement  of  I'arry,  givea  above. 

Tlie  respondent  could  never  have  said  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  superintending 
the  altsrations  ;  this  was  toooiieu  aud  manifest :  3Ir.  K.  is  mistaken  here. 

Thirteenth. — Mr.  Walker  assigned  as  a  reason  for  not  complying  •with 
Mrs.  Kinzie's  request  for  an  interview  and  explanation  of  matters  in 
which  she  felt  aggrieved,  that  he  had  acted  entirely  by  the  advice  of  Mr. 
Saltonstall, -who  thought  Mrs.  Kinzie's  letters  "so  improper,"  that  Mr. 
Walker  could  not,  in  justice  to  himself,  take  any  notice  of  them.  On  the 
same  occasion,  he  gave  as  a  reason  for  not  acceding  to  the  above  request 
for  an  interview,  that  Mr.  Becker  told  him  it  was  to  be  a  meeting  pre- 
liminarj'  to  forcing  him  to  resign  the  rectorship  of  St.  James'.  (K.'s 
charge.)  Juliette  A.  Kinzie. 

Mrs.  Kinzie  called — States  the  above  specification  is  entirely  correct 

Mr.  Saltonstall  called — States  that  Mr.  Walker  called  on  him.  and 
showed  him  Mrs.  Kinzie's  first  letter,  (marked  E,)  requesting  an  inter- 
view. He  told  Mr.  Walker  as  it  was  an  important  matter,  he  should  pre- 
fer having  Mrs.  K.'s  specification.  On  receiving  the  second  letter, 
(marked  F,)  witness  advised  him  to  take  24  hours  to  consider  of  it,  and 
give  it  serious  and  prayerful  consideration. 

A.  C.  Becker  states,  that  he  did  not  tell  Mr.  Walker  it  was  to  be  a  meet- 
ing preliminary  to  his  being  forced  out  of  the  parish.  He  told  liim  noth- 
ing of  the  kind.  A.  C.  Becker.    , 

Remarks.— Of  the  latter  clause  in  the  specification,  a  re-affirmation  of  what  Becker 
told  the  respondent  may  suffice. 

The  correspondence  itself,  taken  in  connection  with  the  above  statement  of  Mr.  Sal- 
tonstall, may  be  sufficient  respecting  the  former.    It  is  as  follows ; 

"  Sir,— 

"  If  you  think  proper  to  accede  to  the  request  of  Mrs.  Kinzie  contained  in  the 
accompanying  note,  will  you  please  specify  to  me  the  time  at  which  it  will  be  most  con- 
venient to  you  to  call  at  our  house,  in  order  that  Messrs.  Whiting  and  Becker  may  bo 
at  leisure  to  meet  us. 

"  Respectfully  yours, 

"  JNO    H   KINZIE. 
"  TOBSDAT  MOWJISO,  Dcc.  12, 1843." , 

"Rev.  Sib,— 

"  A  very  painful  impression  has  been  left  on  my  mind  by  certain  injnrl- 
ons  statements  respecting  ine,  reputed  to  have  been  made  on  your  authority. 

"In  the  relation  in  which  we  stand,  of  clergyman  and  parishioner,  I  cannot  doubt 
you  will  hasten  to  offer  such  an  explanation  as  will  remove  all  cause  of  complaint.  I 
trust,  therefore,  you  will  think  me  justitied  in  requesting  you  to  name  the  earliest  hour 
convenient  for  an  interview,  in  ordur  that  the  truth  may  be  made  manifest. 

"  As  parties  concerned  in  the  statements  in  question,  I  should  wish  that  both  Mr. 
Whiting  and  Mr.  Btcker  might  be  present  on  the  occasion,  and  it  would  also  be  ray 
wish  to  invite  the  attendance  of  an  old  and  valued  friend  in  the  Church,  who  may 
Judge  impartially  in  the  matter. 

"  Very  respectfully  yours, 

"  JULIETTE  A.  KINZIE. 
"Chioaoo,  Dec.  12, 1843." 

".J.  H.  Kinzbb: 

"  My  Dear  Sir:— A  reply  to  the  letter  of  Mrs.  Kinzie,  enclosed  in  yours  of  to-day,  to 
me,  is  herein  sent  to  you.    By  handin"  it  to  Mrs.  K.,  you  will  oblige, 
"  Your  friend  and  pastor, 

"W.  F.  WALKER. 
"  CnicAoo,  Dec.  12, 1843." 

"Mb8.  J.  H.  KutZIE: 

"  Dear  Madam  .—On  being  informed  what  are  the  '  statements  raipecting  y«n,  repu- 
ted to  have  been  made  on  my  authority,'  by  which  '  a  painful  impression  has  beea  left 
on  your  mind,'  as  is  stated  to  have  been  the  case  in  your  note  of  to-day,  I '  will  hasten,' 
as  you  have  not  doubted  I  would,  'to  offer  such  an  explanation'  as  I  shall  be  able ;  and, 
by  making  '  the  truth  manifest,'  will  endeavor  to '  remove  all  canse  of  complaint.'  But 
while,  as  at  present,  ignorant  of  tht '  statements,'  the  utter  impossibility  of  my  replying 
to  them,  or  pronouncing  upon  tht-m,  must  be  apparent.  Whether  ttiey  have  been 
made  by  my  '  autherity'  or  not.  presents,  lo  far  as  I  can  diieover,  no  question  for  arbl- 


5U 

tration  i  for  lu  eo  ftir  ae  thev  are  true,  iiivolviug  no  mijapprelieusiou  or  niiirepresenta- 
tion,  1  Bliall  oertaliilf  aiinilt  them,  aiid  so  far  shuil  cheerfully  consent  to  be  lield  an- 
swerable to  you.  IJut,  in  so  fur  us  tUey  Involve  miaapprehension  or  luisreprestntation, 
1  shall  as  certainly  deny  tliein ;  and  hold  it  us  a  case  solely  hotween  niytelf  and  thti 
Xjersou  or  per^ons'tlirouf^h  whom  the  '  statements'  have  been  made  to  you. 

"  Ko  '  statements-  which  1  have  made  or  authorized  regarding;  you,  Jladam,  not  mis- 
apprehended or  misrepresented,  can.  I  am  pure,  be  otherwLse  'injurious'  than  as  the 
truth  may  so  jirove :  and  this  certainly  could  not  liav»i  given  the  •  painful  impression' 
which  '  h"a.<!  been  left  on  your  mind,'  or  proved  'a  cause  of  just  'complaint'  There 
must,  therefore,  be  a  wrong  somewhere,  through  fault,  in  the  misrepresentation  or 
misapprehension  of  some  reporter  or  reporters  un  from  me,  which  deeply  concerns  me, 
and  which  i)oint,s  to  my  being  put  in  passession  of  the  '  statements'  as  necessary  to  ena- 
ble nie  to  decide  where  lies  the  accountability,  and  to  secure  justice  to  you  and  to  all 
concerned. 

'•A  remembrance  of  our  relations  as  Christians,  with  a  simple  desire  for  truth,  and 
that  only,  will,  J  am  sure,  speedily  rectify  all  that  is  at  ])resent  false  in  our  position, 
and  restore  us  to  that  '  peace  and  good-will,'  to  the  cultivation  of  which,  at  this  holy 
Eeason,  the  Church  especially  calls  the  ntteiition  of  her  children. 

"  M;',y  '  t'le  crooked'  speedily  '  be  made  straight.'  and  all '  tlie  rough  places  plain,'  so 
that  we  may  again  'withoneniind  and  one  mouth  glorify  (jod,  even  our  Father,' 
through  our  liOrd  Jesus  Christ! 

"  I  shall  hojie  to  be  furnished  the  '  statements'  complained  of  at  your  earliest  conve- 
nience 

"  Very  respectfully  and  truly, 

'•  Your  friend  aiid  pastor, 

"AV    F    WALKER. 

*■  CaicAGe,  Dec.  12, 1M3." 

"  Ebv.  Sib  :— 

"  It  was  precisely  for  the  purpose  of  making  known  to  you  the  statement! 
reterrcd  to,  that  I  requested  an  interview  with  you,  in  my  note  of  yesterday. 

"  In  the  presence  of  those  who  profe.«s  to  hare  received  the  statements  from  you,  it 
will  be  ca.«y  to  avow  or  disavow  them — to  ascertain  where  lies  the  '  misapprehension  or 
misrepresentation.' 

"  If  you  are  conscious  that  the  '  law  of  truth  and  kindness'  has  been  ever  on  your  lip» 
since  you  have  ministered  among  us,  vou  will  court,  rather  than  avoid  such  an  expla- 
nation. 

"  Statements  have  be?n  made,  professedly  by  yon,  wliich  I  pronounce,  and  can  prove 

to  be,  utterly  end  jinequivocally  false.    You  surely  will  not  rest  under  the  imputation  of 

having  made  them,  but  will  come  boldly  forward,  as  a  (Christian  l'a.=tor  should  do,  and 

without  evasion  or  circumlocution,  prove  that  you  are  clear  from  the  charge.  >  • 

"  Verv  respectfully  yours, 

"JULIETTE  A.  KINZIE 
:    "  Chicaqo,  Wednesday.  Dec.  13. 1843."  <  i 

To  this  letter  no  reply  was  made,  because,  under  the  conviction  attained  through  the 
adviee  of  Mr.  Saltonstall,  it  was  forbiddpn. 

Subsequently,  the  meeting  with  Kinzic  and  Becker  in  the  Testry-room  took  place, 
where  a  meeting  with  Mrs.  K .,  for  a  mutual  statement  ot  giievances  and  explanations 
was  agreed  upon  for  the  23d  of  December,  and  which  is  often  mentioned  in  these 
charges. 

The  meeting  was  ultimately  productive  of  no  good,  as  this  paper  sufficiently  shows. 

Fourteenth. — Mr.  Walker  asserted  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Kinzie  on  the  1 2th 
Not.,  that  at  the  meeting  of  the  Ladies'  Society  at  j\Ij-s.  Foot'.",  one  of  the 
ladies  had  told  him  something  with  regard  to  Mrs.  Kinzie,  but  which  of 
the  ladies  it  was  "7;e  could  not furhii^  life  recollect"  when  urged  to  give 
his  name  ;  but  afterwards,  on  tlie  '23d  Dec.,  in  the  presence  of  Rogers. 
Saltonstall,  &o.  admitted  that  he  "■did  recollect"  and  denied  that  he  had  told 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Kinzie  that  "  he  could  not  do  so."     (K.'s  charge.) 

Mrs.  Kinzie  states  that  every  word  of  the  above  is  true. 

Juliette  A.  Kinzie-.. 

Jno.  II.  Kinzie  states  that  the  above  specification  is  true.* 

■Jno.  H.  Kinzie. 

John  Roqers  states,  that  in  the  interview  at  Mr.  Kinzie's  house,  Mr. 
Walker  denied  saying  to  Mr.  and  Mrs,  Kinzie  that  he  could  not  recollect 

•  And  yet  this  same  person,  under  oath,  depo.'ed  as  follows :  "  Mr.  Walker  told  Mrs 
Kinzie,  iii  my  presence,  that,  at  the  Sewing  Society  at  Mrs.  Foot's,  he  had  been  told 
that  she  had  said  something  against  him:  and  when  she  asked  what  it  was,  and  who 
told  him,  he  said  he  '  would  not  teil,'  or  '  could  not  tell.'  When  that  convcrsiition  was 
referred  to  subsequently  at  my  house,  he  said  he  '  knew  the  person,  but  would  not  give 
the  name;'  the  witness  gnre  it  first,  and  then  erased  these  words,  and  said  instead, 
'  could  not  for  his  life  recollect' who  told  him." 

By  this  testimony  tlie  offence  of  the  alleged  deniaj.at  least,  is  removed;  while  it 
shows  how  very  uucerfnin,  after  al!.  ie  the  exacteat  lutmoiy  in  regard  ro  precise  word* 
used  in  conversation. 


60 

the  name  of  the  lady  who  gave  him  the  information.  He  was  then  asked 
to  give  the  name,  which  he  declined.  John  Rogers. 

Remarks.— An  extract  from  the  deposition  of  a  witness  of  the  presenters,  taken  in 
connection  with  tho  Itemarks  under  Speciiication  10th,  may  perhaps  sufficiently  explain 
Specification  14th.  That  the  testimony  was  elicited  in  a  cross-examination  will  be  ob- 
vious.   It  is  as  follows : 

"  Q.  Does  it  consist  with  your  knowledf^  that  any  lady  at  that  meeting  [at  Mrs. 
Foot's]  informed,  Mr.  Walker  that  Mrs.  Kiuzie,  during  that  afternoon,  had  been  ridi- 
culing the  plan  that  it  was  understood  Mr.  W.  intended  that  evening  to  propose — to 
have  the  ladies  co-operat*  by  lending  their  eft'orts  and  appropriating  money  to  build 
Trinity  Church? 

"A I  don't  know  of  any  lady  informing  Mr.  W.  that  Mrs.  Kinzie  ridiculed 

his  plan,  but  I  know  that  it  was  talked  of  in  his  presence,  but  don't  know  that  any  one 
particularly  told  him. 

"  Q.  Did  not  you  state,  in  abed-room  in  your  house,  at  that  meeting,  to  Mrs.  Walker 
and  another  lady,  that  Mrs.  Kiuzie  had  ridiculed  Mr.  W  ■.«  plan  that  day  ;  and  did  you 
not  express  yourself  to  them  as  much  injured  in  your  leeliiigs  by  it  ? 

"  A.  I  don't  remember  of  .saving  it  to  Mrs.  W.  1  liave  said  tliat  1  thought  Mrs.  Kin- 
zie said  too  much,  and  that  I  did  not  like  to  hear  it  ridiculed — our  having  a  church  on 
this  [south]  side  of  the  river. 

"  Q.  Did  you  not,  among  other  things,  say  on  that  day,  or  at  any  other  time,  to  Mr. 
W.  himself," that  Mrs.  Kiuzie  had  said  that  if  the  gentlemen  wanted  the  money,  they 
had  better  oe  furnished  with  some  knitting,  &c.  &c.? 

"  A.  Mrs.  Kinzie  said  if  the  gentlemen  were  going  to  appropriate  the  ladies'  money, 
they  had  better  come  and  cut  out  the  aprons  and  work,  and  have  some  knitting  ;  and  I 
presume  I  told  it  to  ili>.  W." 

The  witness  did  tell  it  to  Mr.  W.,  and  that  too  on  his  entering  the  house  at  the  meet- 
ing of  ladies  referred  to.  When  the  respondent  mentioned  the  circumstance,  he  wa« 
pressed  to  disclose  the  name  of  the  lady  who  told  him.  Not  wishing  to  involve  her 
■with  Mrs.  K.,  he  declared  that  he  could  not  give  her  name.  That  "  he  could  not  re- 
collect," is  a  misunderstanding  of  his  words,  lie  believes  that  he  always  "  did  recol- 
lect" the  witness  above  quoted  as  the  author  of  what  was  referred  to,  wliich  was  what 
is  given  above  from  her  deposition.  The  denial  on  the  23d  of  December,  was  in  correc- 
tion of  the  misunderstanding  referred  to. 

Fifteenth. — IMr.  "Walker  told  Sir.  and  ISIrs.  Kinzie,  that  he  had  left  his 
parish  in  Troy  voluntarily,  and  in  consequence  of  some  misunderstand- 
ing with  Dr.  !MiInor.     (K.'s  charge.) 

Mr  Becker  states  that  Mr.  Walker  has  told  him  the  same  thing,  and 
that  he  had  never  been  except  on  terms  of  peace  and  harmony  with  any 
of  his  congregations.  A.  C.  Becker. 

Mr.  Kinzie  heard  Mr.  "Walker  say  that  he  left  his  parish  in  Troy  volun- 
tarily, in  consequence  of  a  difficulty  with  Dr.  Milnor. 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie. 

Mrs.  Kinzie  states  that  she  has  heard  him  make  the  same  assertion. 

Juliette  A.  Kikzie. 

Remarks.— That  the  respondent  did  resipn  his  rectorship  of  Christ  Church,  Troy, 
"  voluntarily,"  and  without  its  being  anticipated  either  by  tne  Vestry  or  congregation, 
or  ever  suggested  by  either,  is  here  affirmed.  It  is  believed  that,  at  the  time,  it  waa 
neither  thought  of  nor  desired  by  any.  The  harmony  that  was  in  the  relation  which 
was  thus  severed,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  the  Wardens  and  Vestry  empow- 
ered the  respondent  to  call  his  successor,  by  a  resolution  like  the  following : 

"  Resolveri,  That  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker,  understanding  the  wants  of  this  parish,  be 

and  is  hereby  authorized  to  call  the  Rev. ,  at salary,  to  the 

rectorship  which  he  has  just  resigned." 

By  virtue  of  this  resolution,  the  Rev.  Edward  Ingersoll  was  invited,  by  the  respond- 
ent, to  the  position  named;  and  the  vacancy,  at  the  expiration  of  about  six  months,  du- 
ring which  time  tlie  chip-ch  was  supplied  by  the  respondent,  was  thus  filled. 

Tne  determining  cause  which  led  to  the  respondent's  resignation  at  that  precise  junc- 
ture, was  an  occurrence  that  took  place  on  occasion  of  a  visit  to  his  church  of  Bishop 
Meade,  and  the  late  Dr.  Milnor.  That  occurrence  is  stated  by  tho  witness,  Mrs.  K.,  as 
having  been  related  to  her  by  the  respondent,  two  and  a  half  years  before,  with  an  ex- 
actnes.s  with  the  facts  themselves  sucti  as  will  bring  a  .scene  of  painful  interest  to  the 
memory  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Barry,  of  Jersey  City,  and  those  brethren  of  the  clergy,  then  in 
and  about  Troy,  who  were  present  and  witnessed  it ;  and  to  some  of  whom  w'as  at  once 
communicated  by  the  respondent  his  intention  in  view  of  it ;  an  intention  which  was 
executed  within  a  few  hours  after. 

The  occasion  on  which  the  occurrence  referred  to  took  place,  was  that  of  a  visit  of  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Meade,  the  Kev.  Drs.  Milnor  and  Barry,  and  the  Rev.  clergy  then 
in  and  about  Troy,  to  the  church  of  the  respondent,  on  the  evening  of  the  23d  Sunday 
after  Trinity,  it  is  believed,  1839.  Bishop  Meade  preached  ;  the  respondent  said  prayers. 
Dr.  M.  had  expected  to  have  done  this ;  out  the  respondent  having  been  informed  by  a 
brother  that  he  had  said  he  should,  by  his  manner,  "give  Walker  a  brush  in  his  own 
church,"  he  was  not  asked  ;  but  was  seated  with  the  other  clergy  within  the  chancel. 


61 

Says  the  witness, "  the  Bishop  had  hardly  finished  the  Benediction,  after  hie  sermon, 
and  the  congregation  had  not  left  the  cliurch,  when  Dr.  JI.  jumped  up  and  danced 
about,  exclauning. '  Oxford  Tracts  and  Popery  !  Oxford  Tracts  and  Popery  !'  He,  Mr. 
W.,  was  very  much  mortified,  and  told  Dr.  M.  he  desired  to  know  what  he  alluded  to. 
Dr.  M.  said,  in  the  first  place,  the  very  lorm  and  finishing  of  the  church  was  objection- 
able. Mr.  W.  told  him  it  was  built,  [arranged  rather,  as  rcjjards  the  chancel,]  upon  a 
plan  recommended  by  Bishop  O.,  and  had  been  followed  in  instances  before,  and  he 
did  not  suppose  that  any  fault  would  be  found  with  it.  Dr.  M.  then  objected  to  the 
bowings  and  gestures  [?]  that  Mr.  W.  had  made  use  of  in  the  service.  Mr.  W.  replied 
he  was  not  conscious  of^having  made  use  of  any  bowings  and  gestures,  except  the  bow- 
ing at  the  name  of  Jesus  in  the  Creed,  as  is  cu.'itomary  in  the  Church.  Dr.  M.  replied 
that  he  should  bow  his  head  reverently,  and  not  the  knee,  or  in  some  way  found  fault 
with  Mr.  W.'s  manner  of  doing  reverence.  Dr.  M.'s  remarks  were  of  such  a  character, 
and  made  openly,  before  many  of  the  congregation,  who  had  stoi)ped  to  listen,  and  Mr. 
W.'s  feelings  were  so  much  hurt,  that  lie  went  home  and  wrote  his  resignation  to  the 
Vestry  that  very  evening,  and  that  he  would  not  remaiu  in  charge  of  the  church  ano- 
ther dav  after  such  an  occurrence  had  taken  place,  lie  stated  that  the  parish  had  been 
gathered  together  by  his,  Mr.  W.'s,  exertions;  that  he  had  embarked  a  good  deal  of  his 
own  property  in  it;"  ($500  were  given  by  the  respondent  towards  the  building,  besides 
gratuitous  .services  for  a  long  while;)  •'  that  they  were  not  a  very  strong  Church  people, 
and  he  was  afraid  of  the  cfll-ct  of  remarks  coming  from  such  a  source  on  people  of  tnat 
character,  that  it  would  occasion  trouble  in  the  parish,"  &c. 

This  scene  was  related  by  the  respondent  before  the  venerable  brother  whom  it  in- 
volves had  "  fallen  asleep."  It  is  due  to  his  memory  to  state,  that  to  a  Rev.  brother 
now  in  Is'ew  York  City,  he  subsequently  expressed  his  regret  for  the  occurrence,  and 
thought  he  had  gone  too  tar. 

Sixteenth.* — Mr.  Walker  reproved  Mrs.  Kinzie  for  using  the  expression 
"  Trinity  Parish,"  and  told  her  to  say  "  Our  Church  over  the  river"  that 
there  was  no  such  thing  as  "  Trinity  Parish,"  that  "  it  had  ceased  to  exist," 
and  subsequently  claimed  to  have  been  called  conjointly  to  St.  James' 
and  Trinity  parishes,  and  assured  Anson  Sperry  that  the  call  he  received 
was  by  a  conjoint  letter  from  the  two  parishes,  written  at  Mr.  Norton's 
store.     (K.'s  charge.) 

Mrs.  Kinzie  con'oborates  the  above  so  far  as  it  refers  to  herself.f 

Juliette  A.  Kinzie. 

Mr.  Kinzie  confirms  the  specification,  and  .states  he  was  present  when 
Mr.  Walker  reproved  Mrs.  Kinzie  for  using  the  term  "  Trinity  Parish." 

Jno.  H.  Kinzie. 

Mr.  Anson  Sperry  states,  that  three  or  four  weeks  before  Easter,  Mr. 
Walker  told  witness  he  had  received  a  call  from  Trinity  Church  as  well 
as  St.  James',  and  the  call,  as  he  understood,  was  given  by  both  parishes 
at  the  same  time,  written  at  Mr.  Norton's  store.  He  heard  Mr.  Walker 
state  at  Mr.  Skinner's,  before  he  went  East  for  his  family,  that  they  had 
done  the  fair  thing  by  him ;  that  he  had  received  a  call  from  both 
churches. 

Semasks.— The  note  to  "  Kemarks"  under  Specification  10th,  page  65,  will  explain 
what  is  alleged  to  have  been  said  by  the  respondent  touching  the  existence  of  Tnnity 
Church  ;  and  the  fact  that  the  canonical  certificate  of  his  election  to  its  rectorship  waa 
sent  by  its  Wardens  to  the  Bishop  August  9th,  1843,  might  be  sufficient  to  substantiate 
the  claim  asserted  to  have  been  made.  But  as  concluding  more  perfectly,  if  possible, 
that  point,  and  at  the  same  time  evincing  the  present  relation  of  the  respondent  to  his 
parish,  the  following,  from  the  Records  of  Trinity  Charch,  officially  communicated  to 
the  respondent  Feb.  alth,  1844,  is  submitted  :— 

"  Whereas,  in  the  month  of  August  last,  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  accepted  the  Rec- 
torship of  Trinity  Church,  in  conjunction  with  that  of  St.  James',  in  this  city,  on  an  in- 
vitation from  this  Board  ;— and 

"Whereas,  it  was  then  believed  that  such  partial  services  as  it  was  supposed  he  would 
be  able  to  render  this  parish,  in  connection  with  those  required  by  hjs  other  charge, 
would  be  commensurate  with  its  wants,  the  contrary  of  which  is  now  indicated,  by  the 
unexpected  prasperity  of  this  Church  and  its  promising  prospects  for  the  future ; — and 

"  Whereas,  a  change  corresponding  with  the  change  in  our  circumstances,  it  is  be- 
lieved, should  be  made  in  the  relation  to  us  of  our  Rector,— the  substitution  of  his  en- 
tire services  for  the  partial  oversight  contemplated  in  our  present  relation  : — Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  \V,  T.  Walker  be  invited  to  the  Rectorship  of  Trinity 
Church  exclusive  of  St.  James' ;  and  that  he  be  requested  to  enter  fully  upon  his  duties 
as  such  Rector,  at  the  earliest  period  compatible  with  the  engagements  by  which  he  is 
at  present  holden." 

*  This  specification  was  not  in  the  Presentment  which  was  served  on  the  respondent. 

t "  Perhaps  I  should  rather  have  said  that  he  corrected  the  expression  than  that  he 
reproved  me,"  explains  the  witness,  Mrs.  K.,  in  her  deposition. 


62 

Ibe  canonical  certificate  uf  tbe  ivbovc  was  at  once  sent  to  tht  Uishop  by  tbe  Wardeui 
It  was  in  form  ae  fulluwit : 

"We.  the  Churelnrnrdenp,  do  certify  to  the  Ri^'ht  licv.  I'hilander  Chase,  D.  D., 
Bishop'of  the  Diocese  ofl'linoi-;.  tli:\t  llie  Kev.  W'm.  P.  Walker  has  been  duly  cboteu 
Eector  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  City  of  Chicago." 

• 

The  above  Charges  and  Specificationp  were  served  on  the  re- 
.«;pondent,  in  the  form  of  a  Presentment,  June  lOth,  1844. 

A  Citation  Avas  prefixed  to  the  document,  calling  on  the  respon- 
dent to  appear  and  answer  thereto,  in  the  basement  of  St.  James' 
Church,  Chicago,  on  the  8th  of  July  then  folloAving,  before  a  Court 
consisting  of  "the  Bishop  as  Judge,  and  not  less  than  three  or 
more  than  six  presbj-ters,  assessors  with  him ;"  said  '•  presbyters" 
to  be  "  selected  by  the  accused*  out  of  a  list  of  the  clergy  of  Illi- 
nois,"t  which  w^as  therewith  furnished. 

The  following  note  accompanied  the  Citation  and  Presentment : 

(Private.) 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  :— 

Dear  Sir, — I  have  fixed  the  time  of  your  trial  according  to  the  Canons. 
It  can  be  altered,  should  you  wish  an  earlier  period.  Please  to  let  me 
know  before  I  write  to  my  Counsel. 

Your  obedient  servant  and  friend, 

PHILAN.  CHASE. 
Monday,  lOth  June,  1844. 

As  soon  as  these  papers  were  received,  the  respondent  sought  a 
friend,  whom  he  induced  to  accompany  him  in  a  call  on  the  Bishop. 
At  the  interview  then  had,  the  respondent  asked, 

1st,  That  "some  neighboring  Bishop  be  requested  to  preside 
upon  the  trial,"  as  the  Canon  allowed,  where  the  Bishop  of  the  T)ir 
ocese  was  "  a  party  concerned  ;" — 

2d,  That  the  time  for  the  trial  be  some  two  or  three  weeks  later 
than  "that  appointed,  to  allow  of  some  testimony  being  obtained 
from  Troy,  touching  Specification  15th ;  and  from  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  and  Boston,  to  impeach  the  "  swift  witness,"  Becker. 

In  relation  to  the  former  request,  such  solemn  asseverations  of  im- 
partiality were  made,  that  it  was  at  once  waived ;  and  txa  the  latter, 
it  was  replied,  that  Specification  15  did  not  belong  to  the  Present- 
ment ;  that  it  had  been  ordered  to  be  stricken  out,  and  that  the  tes- 
timony of  Becker  might  be  set  aside.  "  .   ' 

Two  great  impediments  being  thus  removed,  the  respondent  was 
anxious  for  an  immediate  investigation,  and  urged  the  Bishop  to 
allow  the  provisions  of  Canon  with  respect  to  time  to  elapse  before 
trial,  (as  suggested  in  the  note  from  the  Bishop  above  given,)  as- 
sessors, &c.  to  be  waived,  and  permit  the  whole  case  to  come  at 
once  before  him  alone,  as  Judge  and  final  arbiter. 

He  seemed  disposed  to  listen  to  this  proposal,  till  dissent  was 
expressed  by  the  Rev.  Ezra  B.  Kellogg,  then  present.  To  Mr. 
K.  the  respondent  simply  remarked,  that  he  had  called  to  see  and 
consult  with  the  Bishop ;  and  to  him,  therefore,  he  renewed  hi? 
proposal,  and  urged  its  adoption.  ' 

At  this  stage  of  the  matter,  the  Bishop  demanded,  "  You  must. 
sir,  enter  into  a  recognizance  for  the  costs  of  the  trial,  before  any 
thing  further  can  be  done  !"     Startled  by  the  introduction  of  so 

•  See  Canon  XIV.  of  1838,  sec.  5,  page  46. 

t  Nine  in  number,  exclusive  of  two  of  the  Bishopj  family,  and  the  B#v.  presenter. 


63 

extraordinary  an  issue,  the  respondent  and  his  friend  both  object- 
ed to  the  demand  as  novel  and  oppressive,  and  claimed  that  of 
those  who  had  sought  the  trial  the  demand  should  have  been  made, 
— of  the  plaintiffs,  and  not  of  the  defendant. 

With  the  exception  that  the  time  for  the  trial  was  postponed 
one  week,  to  the  15th  of  July,  and  the  new  issue  respecting  a  recog- 
nizance, which  might  result  in  the  postponement  of  the  trial  in-, 
definitely,  was  made,  the  interview  was  without  account. 

At  4  o'clock  P.  M,  of  the  day  following,  a  letter,  of  which  the 
following  is  a  copy,  was  sent  to  the  Bishop : 

Chicago,  June  11,  1844. 
Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : 

From  the  hst  of  the  Clergy  in  the  Diocese,  wlilch  you  kindly  furnished 
me  last  evening,  I  would  select  the  llev.  Joseph  L.  Dai-row,  the  Rev. 
Geo.  P.  Giddinge,  and  the  Rev.  James  De  Piii,  to  "  sit  as  assessors  "with 
the  Bishop,"  on  the  trial  of  myself,  appointed  for  the  15th  of  July. 

I  shall,  God  ■willing,  be  ready,  at  the  time  and  place  appointed,  to  an- 
swer to  the  Charges  preferred,  and  I  hope  to  the  satisfaction  of  my 
Bishop. 

As  regards  provisions  for  the  expenses  which  will  be  incident  to  the 
trial,  not  including  those  to  which  I  must  be  subject  in  procuring  my  tes- 
timony, it  can  hardly  be  that  the  prosecution  will  claim  an  exemption 
from  the  rule  which  Is  ever  observed  in  civil  cases.  The  rules  which  pre- 
vail in  such  cases,  we  have  been  taught  were  to  govern  here*,  and  if  so, 
that  matter  is  settled  at  once.  It  is  ail  that  I  can  bear,  and  more  than  I 
ought  to  be  subjected  to  at  this  time,  for  I  am  truly  poor,  to  secure  the 
testimony  and  the  counsel  which  it  will  devolve  upon  me  to  procure.  I 
cannot,  therefore,  do  any  thing  towai-ds  defraying  other  expenses  of  the 
trial.  The  feelings  of  my  friends  generally  are  like  those  expressed  to 
you  by  Mr.  S*******  this  morning,  as  far  as  I  can  gather. 

Could  the  proposal  which  I  made  this  moruing,  to  dispense  with  the 
forms  of  law,  and  seek  at  once  the  merits  of  the  Charges,  be  acceded  to,  I 
am  of  opinion  the  cause  of  right  and  the  good  of  the  Church  would  be 
promoted.  If  this  may  not  be,  I  abide  within  the  rights  secured  to  me 
by  the  Canons,  and  conceded  by  my  Bishop,  and  hold  myself  ready  for 
the  trial  as  appointed. 

DutifuUy, 

Your  presbyter, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 

Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D. 

At  5  o'clock,  P.  M.  of  the  same  day,  the  following  was  received  :t 

To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  : 

Dear  Sir, — I  gave  you  the  list  of  the  Clergy  of  Ulinois,  from  which  you 
were  respectfully  requested  to  select  such  as  you  desire  to  be  assessors 
with  the  Bishop  on  your  trial. 

You  have  not  as  yet  made  the  selection  ;  and  if  you  had  so  done,  I  am 
precluded  from  writing  to  them  to  attend  at  the  time  appointed,  ^•iz.  on  the 
15th  of  July  next,  by  the  fact  of  your  friends  having  refused  to  enter  iiv! 
to  an  agreement  to  pay  their  expenses  in  travelling  to  Chicago.  ' 

I  am  not  able  to  bear  this  expense ;  nor  they  to  endure  it  without  in- 
jury to  their  famihes.  '^ 

*  Allusion  is  here  made  to  declarations  made  by  the  Bishop  on  the  trial  of  Becker. 
Appendix,  M.  , 

t  It  would  appear  that  the  letter  of  the  Bishop  was  written  before  that  of  the  respond- 
ent reached  him.  If  so,  it  narrows  the  time  allowed  the  respondent  for  deliberation 
and  decision,  from  the  time  the  Presentment  was  served  on  him,  to  less  than  one  day. 
Still  the  Bishop  says,  "  You  have  not  as  ypt,"  &c.  Cyf  thi»  haste  to  conclude  a  pcint 
against  the  respondent,  otheri  may  judge. 


64 

I  am  compelled,  therefore,  to  postpone  your  trial  till  a  sufficient  sum 
of  money  has  been  raised  to  bear  the  expenses  thereof. 
Your  friend  and  servant  in  the  Lord, 

PHIL'R  CHASE. 
Chicago,  11th  June,  A.  D.  1844. 

The  Bishop  having  succeeded  in  getting  the  respondent  pre- 
sented, had  caused  him  to  be  thus  brought  more  especially  under 
his  power ;  and  while  a  time  had  been  "  iixed"  for  a  trial,  had  in- 
troduced a  foreign  and  before  unheard-of  issue,  by  which  to  keep 
the  respondent  "  fast  bound,"  until,  perhaps,  lie  should  be  finally 
broken.  For  this  is  the  complexion  which  the  course  of  affairs,  at 
this  time,  assumed.  How  true  is  this  judgment  the  sequel  will 
show. 

On  the  morning  of  the  12th  of  June,  the  following  letter  was  put 
into  the  hands  of  the  respondent  by  the  Rev.  E.  B.  Kellogg,  who 
said  that  the  Bishop  was  then  on  the  steamboat,  and  was  to  leave 
the  city  in  a  few  moments : 

Chicago,  12th  June,  1844. 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  : 

Dear  Sir, — I  cannot  require  the  presence  of  the  named  assessors  on 
your  trial  in  Chicago,  at  their  own  expense,  nor  at  mine.  They  are  poor, 
and  I  am  without  means  of  support.  More  than  SI 00  will  be  required 
to  indemnify  them  their  loss  ;  and  only  one  half  of  this  sum  is  promised 
to  be  raised  by  the  members  of  St.  James'  congrcojation.  Unless,  there- 
fore, something  be  done,  I  must  of  necessity  be  obliged  to  defer  your  trial 
till  we  all  meet  in  Convention  in  Springlleld. 

As  to  the  matter  of  "  equitj-"  in  "  dispensing  with  the  forms  of  law," 
I  have  no  right  to  do  so ;  these  forms  of  law  meaning  in  this  case,  the 
Canons  of  the  Church.*  These  we  are  all  bound  to  obey  by  our  ordina- 
tion vows.  By  no  other  means  can  "  the  merits  of  the  case,"  as  mentioned 
by  you,  "  be  attained,"  and  legal  sentence  pronounced. 

I  can  on  this  head,  add  no  more  than  this ;  that  if,  when  Mr.  Becker's 
testimony,  (against  which  you  so  strongly  object,)  is  withdrawn,  you  can 
say  you  have  done  wrong,  and  are  willing  to  stand  corrected  and  advised 
by  your  Bishop,  and  promise  to  do  so,  no  more ;  asking  God's  forgive- 
ness  .  In  this  case  acting  sincerely,  by  divine  assist- 
ance, you  can  live  down  all  things  now  alleged  to  your  disadvantage. 

Your  faithful  friend, 

P.  CHASE. 

The  respondent  hastened  to  the  boat,  where  he  found  the 
Bishop ;  when  there  followed  the  interview  related  in  the  Answer 
on  pages  20  and  21.     Of  that  interview,  the  Bishop  testified  thus  : 

"  The  boat  was  just  going  off.  Mr.  "Walker  appeared  in  great  agitation, 
and  requested  that  something  might  be  done  before  I  went  off.  I  told 
him  I  knew  of  nothing  to  be  done,  excepting  his  confessing  his  crimes. 
His  crimes  were  stated  in  the  presentation.  I  observed  to  him  that  al- 
though there  appeared  to  be  an  impossibility  in  bringing  him  to  trial, 
that  there  was  one  way  he  might  evade  a  trial,  and  that  was  by  peni- 
tence ;  that  his  accusers  would,  and  I  knew,  if  he  was  truly  penitent,  God 
would  forgive  him ;  and  thus  he  might  be  restored  to  peace  and  useful- 
ness in  the  Church.  He  professed  to  be  very  sorry,  and  I  hoped  he  was 
sincere ;  and,  under  the  influence  of  that  hope,  felt  very  friendly  to  him. 
spoke  friendly  to  him,  and  expressed  my  sincere  wishes  that  Grod  would 

*  By  the  note  of  .Tune  10th,  page  62,  it  win  be  seen  that  the  Bishop  offered  thip  very 
thine,  thus,  to  wit :  "  The  time  ot  vour  trial,  fixed  accordirjr  to  the  Canons,  can  be  al- 
teped,"  &c. 


65 

bless  him.  I  accordingly  desired  him,  as  tliere  was  uo  opportunity  tlicu 
to  write  any  thing  to  my  satisl'uction,  as  the  boat  was  going  otV,  I  desired 
him  to  address  me  at  Detroit.  He  promised  so  to  do.  When  in  Detroit, 
I  waited  for  his  letter  with  anxiety.  1  received  a  letter,  and  it  was  en- 
tirely unsatisfactory.  lie  treated  the  subject  as  il"  it  was  a  quarrel  be- 
tween him  and  his  parish,  instead  of  his  being  guilty  of  crimes.  lie  foi^ 
gave  them,  and  hoped  they  Avould  forgive  him." 

The  letter  referre(4  to  \va.s  as  follows : 

Chicago,  June  12,  1844. 
To  the  Rt.  Rev.  V.  Chask,  D.  D.  : 

Ml/  Itcar  Bishop. — Gratitude  for  tlu;  termination  of  one  of  the  mo.xt 
trying  dillicultics  I  could  be  called  to  encounter,  prompts  a  hearty  ao- 
Jcnow^ledgment  tor  the  kindness  of  your  manner  to  nic  this  morning,  and 
of  your  parting  assurance.  1  trust  in  God  that  henceforth  you  shall 
liave  cause  only  to  be  satisfied  with  the  faithful  service  of  one  who  has 
^vithout  intentional  tiiult,  been  the  occasion  of  so  much  suffering  as  you 
must  have  endured  on  this  account  during  your  late  stay  among  us  ;  and 
that  by  a  walk  chastened  by  the  heavy  titrokes  with  which  I  have  just 
been  visited,  I  may  more  en  inently  glorify  the  Master  Avhom  we  together 
own  and  adore  as  our  Hiiad  and  Lord. 

That  I  have  been  without  fault  in  all  that  has  oecured  here,  I  would 
not  pretend ;  to  tiiis  extent  I  have  never  sought  to  justify  n)ys(;lf.  For 
iill  the  wrong  I  have  done,  I  certainly  "  am  willing  to  stand  corrected 
and  advis-ed  l)y  my  Bishop,  and  to  promise,  '  God  being  my  helper,'"  to 
endeavor  hencetbrtli  so  to  live  and  serve  as  shall  meet  your  tavor,  and 
secure  for  myself  and  for  that  loved  branch  of  the  vine  over  which  I  am 
placed,  that  "blessing  by  which  we  may  together  be  built  up  and  mtido 
'•  strong  in  this  grace  wherein  we  stand."  Further,  I  most  cheerfully  pro- 
fess that  I  '•  am  content  to  Ibrgive  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  all  that 
any  here  or  elsewhere  have  trespassed  against  me,  and  to  make  amends 
for  all  that  wherein  I  myself  have  offended." 

In  the  exer(!ise  of  such  charity,  I  hope,  "by  Divine  assistance,"  to  perform 
the  duties  before  me,  and  so  to  commend  mj-self  to  men's  consciences  in 
the  sight  of  God,  as  to  *'  live  down  all  thijigs  now  alleged  to  my  disadvan- 
tage." I  should  be  glad  to  meet  all  who  have  set  themselves  against  me. 
and  to  have  that  reconciliation  which  must  be  effected  here  in  order  to 
the  admission  of  us  all  into  the  kingdom  glorified  hereafter. 

I  shall  attend  to  the  matter  of  the  scholarship,  to  which  no  thought 
could  before  be  given  by  me,  because  of  the  overwhelming  pressure  of 
the  cares  that  have  been  upon  me. 

Mr.  H***  will  be  made  ready  for  Jubilee  as  soon  as  possible.  We  shall 
get  him  off,  in  all  probability,  in  the  early  part  of  week  after  next. 

Command  me  as  yoii  will.  Bishop,  and  T  shall  prove  myself  most  truly. 
Your  affectionate  and  faithful  presbvter, 

'W.'F.  WALKER. 

Such  was  the.  letter  which  the  Bishop  has  characlerizerl  as  '•  the 
00th  Tract  I"  (See  the  statement  of  Col.  Davis,  page  31,  note.) 
And,  in  the  above  testimony,  is  his  judgment  rendered  on  the  case 
of  the  respondent  in  the  Prepentment  before  given  of  1844,  to  mt: 
**  Guilty  of  crimes  ;  the  crimes  stated  in  the  presentation  !"  And 
yet,  -will  it  be  believed  ?  in  June,  184t%  and  again  in  August  follow- 
ing, he  claimed  to  sit  as  a  "Judge"  to  try  the  respondent,  on  that 
very  Presentment,  upon  which  he  had  already,  in  efiect,  rendered 
such  a  judgment !  And  that,  too,  it  Avill  presently  be  ?cen,  not  only 
withoar,  but  contrary  to  Law  '.  For  Canon  XIV.  of  1838,  had,  in 
the  mean  time,  been  rcy)ealed.  and  Canon  I.  of  184.')  been  ndopied. 

The  Bishop's  reply  to  vrhni  he  has  termed  tlic  "  OOth  Tract," 
was  as  follow?  : 

9 


66 

Buffalo,  20th  June,  1844. 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walkkk  : 

Dear  Sir, — I  received  your  letter  while  at  Detroit,  but  had  no  time  to 
reply. 

I  wish  you  had  made  my  written  communication  to  you  while  at  Chi- 
rago,  instead  of  the  oral  conversation  on  board  the  steamboat,  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  your  letter.  I  referred  you  to  that  communication,  and 
now  repeat  that  reference. 

I  have  the  promise  of  the  gentlemen  of  Trinitj'Tarish  Testry  concern- 
ing the  payment  annually  in  advance  of  S50,  for  a  scholai-ship  in  Jubilee.* 
The  other  SuO  I  have  received  in  advance  from  St.  James'  Vestry 
already. 

The  vacation  in  Jubilee,  3  months,  ■\vill  commence  on  the  1st  of  Au- 
gust      .     It  would  not  be  advisable  for  him  (Mr.  H***) 

to  go  to  Jubilee  till  afler  I  return,  which  will,  if  the  Lord  will,  be  about 
the  first  of  November.  ' 

With  kind  regards  to  the  members  of  Trinity  Church,  "  , 

I  am,  'I', 

Your  obedient  servant  in  Christ, 

P.  CHASE. 

Finding  themselves  thus  disappointed  by  the  Bishop,  in  the  non- 
fulfilment  of  the  assurance  he  had  given  them,  that  he  should  stay 
in  Chicago  till  all  the  matters  touching  the  respondent,  concerning 
which  he  wished  to  institute  enquiry,  should  be  set  at  rest,  and  he 
be  acquitted  or  condemned,  and  by  which  they  had  been  influenced 
to  serve  on  the  enquiry  and  to  join  in  the  Presentment,  four  of 
the  presenters,  laymen,  addressed  the  Bishop  as  follows  : 

To  the  Right  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois: 

The  undersigned  beg  leave  respectfully  1o  state,  that,  in  June  last, 
they  were  by  you  appointed  members  of  a  Committee  of  Enquiry  into 
alleged  charges  against  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker ;  that,  impelled  by  a  de- 
sire to  elicit  the  truth,  by  an  impartial  hearing  of  the  charges  preferred, 
and  the  assurance  that  it  was  but  preliminary  to  a  full,  speedy,  and  final 
trial, — thus  affording  the  accused  an  opportunity  to  adduce  testimony  and 
offer  explanations  which  they  were  confident  would  rebut  entirely,  or 
materially  qualify,  the  charges  preferred, — they  concurred  in  his  present- 
ment ;  but,  being  now  satisfied  that  the  design  and  object  of  their  acqui- 
escence in  the  presentment  of  INIr.  Walker  have  been  entirely  frustrated, 
by  the  postponement  of  his  trial  to  an  uncertain  and  distant  period, 
thereby  subjecting  him  to  unmerited  reproach,  and  them  to  the  painful 
conviction  that  their  own  act  (intended  solely  to  afford  him  the  occasion 
of  exculpating  himself)  has  been  misintei'prctcd,  to  his  injury,  as  an  ex- 
pression of  their  helief  in  his  moral  guilt ;  they  are  constrained  to  with- 
draw their  names  from  the  Presentment  submitted  to  you  by  them,  as 
members  of  the  Committee  of  Enquiry. 

In  thus  relieving  themselves  from  the  false  position  In  which  they  have 
been  placed  relative  to  Mr.  Walker,  they  deem  It  not  less  their  duty  than 
pleasure,  to  express  their  conviction,  of  his  innocence  of  moral  wrong  as 
alleged,  and  then*  full  and  cordial  satisfaction  with  him  as  their  Rcctor.f 
His  steadfast  devotion  to  the  cause  of  his  IMastcr  through  trials,  we  be- 
lieve, ■without  a  precedent,  they  have  witnessed  with  pride  and  gratitude. 

*  This  was  giren  in  oonformitv  with  wbnt  is  stated  in  ttie  Ailftwer,  on  page  28.  TJie 
position  subsequently  assumed  by  the  Bishop  towards  the  respondent  and  liis  parish, 
prevented  it*  fulfilment. 

:  Thus,  four  of  the  presenters  liclieved  the  respondent  "  innocent  of  moral  wronr  as 
alleged;"'  he  beliivcMl  himself  innocent,  and  tliiiiks  he  b&e  shown,  in  his  "Hemarks^' 
under  each  siicciticution,  that  ;lic  was  so;  and  vet  the  Bishop  helioved  him  "guilty,"' 
(•haracterize<l  thi'  otfenccH  chaVL'crt  as  ■■  crime?',''  and  demanded  their  confession '.  A 
demand  which,  if  complied  wifVi,  would  both  have  convicted  and  stultified  the  respon- 
dent, as  all  may  see. 


67 

His  fitnesij  and  success  are  Lappily  exemplified  in  the  regard  of  a  numer- 
ous, uniteil,  and  attentive  congregation,  whoso  chief  aim  it  now  is,  to  en- 
joy his  "  labor  of  love"  without  ''  let  or  hindrance,"  assured  that  the  wel- 
fare of  the  j)arish  now  under  his  charge,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Church 
generally,  will  be  greatly  promoted  by  his  zeal  and  talents. 
Very  respectfully  and  truly, 
(Signed)  GEO.  DAVIS, 

S.  J.  SHERWOOD, 
•     JNO.  BRINKERHOFF, 
W.  W.  SALTONSTALL. 
Chicago,  Aug.  27,  1844. 

The  Bishop  being  asked,  while  on  the  stand  as  a  Avitness,  whe- 
ther lie  received  this  letter  from  four  of  the  presenters,  replied : — 

"I  did  receive  such  a  letter :    I  received  that,  and  regarded  it  as  a  pa- 

Eer  written  entiiely  by  Mr.  Walker,  and  coincident  with  his  character, 
[' Mr.  W.  was  on  the  stand  he  would  say  he  wiote  that  letter." 

The  respondent  rose  and  said,  ''  W".  "W.  Saltonstall  wrote  that  let- 
ter.    I  make  the  assertion  bel'ore  God  and  this  court." 

The  Bishop,  not  satisfied  with  this  declaration,  called  on  Mr.  S. 
in  Lockport,  the  next  day,  and  asked  him  "  who  wrote  that  letter  ?" 
Mr.  S.  avowed  himself  to  have  written  it.  t 

The  respondent  assumed  that  his  letter  to  the  Bishop  at  Detroit, 
perfectly  fulhUing  the  terms  of  the  Bishop's  letter  of  June  12th, 
had  cancelled  the  matters  held  by  the  Bishop  against  him,  and  that 
he  was  therefore  free.  But  his  friends  felt  that  it  was  best  to  make 
assurance  sure,  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  presenters,  as  above ; 
deeming  such  withdrawal  valid,  on  the  gi'ound  that  their  concurrence 
had  been  granted  ccnditionally,  and  that  the  condition  had  not  been 
met. 

Thus  matters  stood,  when,  in  April,  1845,  the  letter  was  written 
and  the  reply  received,  which  are  presented  on  pages  42  and  43. 

In  that  reply,  it  will  be  noticed,  the  Bishop  says  nothing  of  a  trial 
at  the  Convention,  or  of  the  pendency  of  the  case.  The  convic- 
tion, therefore,  became  absolute,  that  "  the  matter"  was  "  set  at 
rest,"  and  that  peace  was  established  between  the  Bishop  and  the 
respondent. 

The  respondent  then  sought  peace  elsewhere,  desiring  that  it 
might  be  universal,  as  folio w^s  : 

Rev.  E.  B.  Kellogg — 

My  Dear  Sir : — Has  not  strangeness  between  us  and  ours,  and 
especially  between  yours  and  myself,  existed  long  enough  ?  Time  suffi- 
cient has  been  allbrded  us  all  for  reflection ;  and  the  painful  position  of 
aliens,  with  respect  to  each  other,  been  long  enough  endured  for  the  ex- 
tremest  penance  for  mutual  faults.  The  church  now  invites  us  to  turn 
from  such  and  all  evil,  to  break  off  fi-om  malice,  let  go  uncharitableness, 
and,  in  view  of  the  love  as  at  this  time  displayed  in  the  humiliation  for 
our  sakes  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  learn,  ourselves — members  of  Him — to  love 
as  brethren,  be  pitiful  and  courteous.  This  present  address  is  intended 
as  an  advance  on  my  part,  in  obedience  to  her  summons.  I  wish  for  my- 
self and  mine  to  be  reconciled  to  jou  and  yours, — acknowledging  uninten- 
tional faultiness  in  many  resai'ds,  avowing  myself  ready  to  "  make  amends 
for  all  that  wherein  I  myself  have  offended,"  so  far  as  is  vrithin  my  power, 
asking  forgiveness  for  my  offences,  and  giving  the  assurance  that  I  "  am 
'•ontent  to  forgive,  from  "the  bottom  of  my  heart,  all  that  any,  here  or  else- 
where, have  trespassed  against  me."    Why  may  we  not,  then,  ''  let  all  bit- 


68 

terness,  and  wrath,  and  anger.  an<J  clamor,  and  ('.vi!-«;ppnkJn/T.  lip  put  away 
from  us,  wi:h  all  malice:  and  be  kind  one  to  anotlu-r,  torider-hparted, for- 
giving one  another,  even  as  Ood  tor  Christ's  sake  harh  for^ven  ub  ?" — 
My  heart's  de.sire  and  prayer  to  God  is,  that  thi.s  may  lie.  I  should  be 
glad  to  meet  all  those  who  have  been  opposeil  to  me.  and  to  whom  I  have 
been  opposed,  and  have  that  reooneiliation  which  must  be  effected  here 
in  order  to  our  admi.ssion  into  the  Kingdom  glorified  herenlTler. 

Please  serve  the  cause  of  peace,  and  of  tlie  cliiircji,  as  this  may  suggest, 
encouraged  by  the  promise  of  bleSsing  to  the  pcarr-mah-r. 
Your  friend,  and  brother  in  the  Church. 

W.  F.  'WAT.KER. 

Chicago,  Festival  of  St.  Matthias,  1845. 

To  this  letter  no  reply  has  ever  been  vouchsafed. 

In  June,  184o,  the  respondent  met  the  Bishop  in  Convention,  a 
notice  of  Avhich  is  contjiinexl  on  page  29.  During  that  Convention, 
nothing  was  said  by  the  Bishop  of  the  pendency  of  any  present- 
ment ;  though  his  manner  indicated,  with  sufficient  clearness,  that 
it  exi.sted  in  effect,  if  not  in  fact.  He  has  himself  testified  in  regard 
to  his  feelings  anterior  to  that  Convention,  the  year  before,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  I  should  have  been  sorry  to  have  embraced  a  person  un- 
der ]Mr.  W.'s  circumstances,  by  putting  my  arm  around  him,  though 
I  felt  friendly  to  him;"  (!)  and  that,  "  at  the  Convention,  he  had 
but  little  conversation  with  hitn." 

At  this  Convention,  Canon  I.  of  1845,  (see  pages  3,  4,  '">,  fi,)  was 
adopted;  by  which.  Canons  XIV.  and  XV.  of  1838,  (see  sec.  13, 
page  f),)  were  repealed. 

A  few  days  after  the  Convention,  the  respondent  met  the  Bishop 
on  the  IMississippi  River;  and,  by  his  manner,  was  so  pained  that 
he  resolved  to  seek  peace  once  more,  or  a  separation.  He.  there- 
fore, addressed  to  him  the  following  : — 

Afitsissippi  River,  June  23,  1815. 
Ht.  Rev.  axd  Dear  Sir — 

Since  leaving  Springfield.  I  have  thought  much  upon  our  position 
relative  to  each  other ;  and  the  conclusion  to  which  I  have  come  is,  that 
you  would  feel  it  a  relief  to  have  me  leave  your  Diocese.  Painful,  there- 
tore,  .as  it  will  be  to  my  feelings  to  break  up  thus  my  connection  with  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois,  T  will  yet  observe  what  T  believe  to  be  your  pleasure, 
by  asking  a  letter  dimis.sory  to  Bishop  Kemper,  stating,  of  course,  all  the 
circumstances  of  my  present  position;  and  that  T  be  allowed  to  resign  my 
present  rectorship. 

Ff  the  Bi.shop  prefer  otherwise,  "will  he  please  regard  me  as  betorc  him 
for  admonition  and  correction  whereinsoever  he  niay  have  thought  me  to 
have  erred,  and  let  me  thereupon  be  restored  to  a  measure  of  that  favor 
which  T  hoped  to  enjoy  when  I  came  into  his  Diocese  ?  The  present  es- 
tr.angement  is  too  trying.  My  chastisement.  Bishop,  h.as  been  a  sore  bur- 
den :  relieve  me,  if  you  can  consistently;  if  not.  let  me  encounter  the 
lesser  pain  of  separation,  as  above  requested. 
Faithfully  and  dutifully. 

Your  Presbvter, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 
Bt.  Bkv.  r.  Chase,  D.  D. 

"With  respect  to  this  letter,  the  Bishop  testified :  ''  T  did  receive 
that  letter  :  I  received  a  similar  one  to  that  now  read  me,  and  did 
not  answer  it,  for  the  rea.son  that  he  had  refused  to  do  the  acts  of 
penitence  expected  before." 

Under  these  circumstances,  two  weeks  later,  came  the  letter  from 


69 

fhc  Bishop,  of  July  12th,  (sec  page  4,"),)  of  which  siifTuMent  has  been 
said  in  tlie  Answei*  on  piijii-s  !?9  uud  'MK 

April  2^5d,  1846,  is  tluMliiteol' the  next  comniimication  :  it  result- 
ed iVom  Sherwood's  application,  (pasre  ^0,  last  paragrapli,)  and  wa^ 
as  follows  : — 

Jnhilre  Cnllege.  April  2S,  184t). 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walkf:i?.  of  Chicajro:         "      ' 

Dear  Sir — Your  trial,  which  I  was  compelled  to  postpone  fi-om 
the  Ifith  d.av  of  July.  1844,  till  T  slionid  have  a  suHicicnt  sum  of  money 
raised  or  pledged  to  bear  tlic  expenses  thereof,*  is  now  appoiulcd  to  take 
place  at  G«lena,  on  the  18lh  of  Jiuie.  1846;  the  Court  opening  at  10 
o'clock,  A.  j\l.,  in  such  building  in  that  town  as  the  Rector  of  Grace 
Church,  or  any  of  his  friends,  may  designate  and  prepare  for  that  pur- 
pose :  the  difficulty  which  occiisioncd  the  postponement,  as  above  named, 
having  now  for  the  first  time  been  removed. 

For  thistrial  it  is  my  duty  .'solemnly  to  advise  youto  prepare. by  confes.s- 
ing  your  faults  or  proving  your  innocence. 

Your  faithful  Pastor, 

PITILAXDER  Cn.YSK.  Bp.  of  Illinois. 

A  comrais.5ion  was  issued  at  the  same  date  for  the  pre.sentraent 
of  1846.  (See  last  par<'igra])h  on  page  36.)  By  May  14th  that 
presentment  was  made,  a  Commissary  appointed  to  take  testimo- 
ny, and  a  notice  of  all  duly  served  on  the  respondent. 

Under  a  protest  against  the  entire  proceedings  had,  and  proposed 
to  be  had,  in  whole  and  in  part,  as  uncanonical,  unjust,  and  oftpres- 
sive,  and  with  an  express  re.«erve  of  the  right  of  exception  subse- 
quently, the  respondent  engaged  in  the  taking  of  testimony  before 
the  Commi.ssary.  by  depositions,  (see  page  11,)  "touching  the 
charg(!S  and  specifications"  contained  in  the  presentment  of  June 
1844,  and  in  that  of  IMay,  184<),  with  a  view  to  the  trial  of  the 
former  June  18th,  just  before,  and  of  the  latter  "on  the  d;iy  imme- 
diately following  the  rising  of,  the  Convention,  at  Galena,"  on  or 
about  June  24tli,  agreeably  to  an  appointment  by  the  Bishop,,  for- 
mally communicated  through  the  Kev.  Ezra  B.  Kellogg.  .,     _  |r,. 

In  a  letter  irom  Bishop  Chase  to  P.  Ballingall,  Esq.',  ai  that 
time  received,  was  the  following,  by  which  the  respondent  was 
warned  that  hi.s  Bishop  was  no  more  favorably  di.spo.sed  towards 
him  than  he  had  been  judged  to  have  been  for  the  two  and  a  half 
years  preceding ;  and  that  nothing,  therefore,  nuist  be  left  o|ien  or 
undone  in  reliance  upon  his  clemency  : 

"If  he,  the  Rev.  Mr.  "VValker,"  is  the  language,  "be  not  prepared  to 
come  to  trial  on  his  presentment  to  me  in  1844.  and  for  good  and  suffi- 
■cicnt  reasons  postponed,  on  the  18th  of  June,  184fi,  the  fault  is  his  own. 

"  The  Counsel  on  the  part  of  the  Church  will  be  there, 

and  if  the  Board  of  Trial  do  their  duty,  they  will  be  present  al.«o  on  that 
day,  viz.  the  18th  day  of  June  instant,  at  Galena,  that  justice  may  be 
done — the  innocent  cleared,  or  the  guilty  punished,  as  the  case  may  be,*.' 

This,  in  connection    with    the   peculiar  introduction    into    the 

•  Compare  this  with  the  closing  sentence  of  the  first  pamgraph  in  the  letter  of  Juub 
12th,  1844,  page  64.  where,  it  will  he  seen  that  the  trial  was  never  postponed  as  is  here 
stated ;  but  is  set  down  for  ,Sprinj,'licld,  at  the  time  of  the  Convention,  absolutely,  "  un- 
less something  be  done,"  that  is,nuinoy  raised  by  the  respondent  or  his  friend.s,  to  bring 
it  on  earlier. 

It  is  remarkable  that  all  failures  of  memory  scorn  to  be  againstthe  respondent.  The 
discrepancy  in  these  letters  is  striking,  and  is  of  this  character. 


70 

Bishop's  corrosiKdidence  ot"  tliat  time  of  tlie  expression,  "I  am  not 
irquired  to  be  present  at  either  of  Mr.  Walker's  trials,"  had  the 
effect,  strange  as  it  may  seem  to  those  unacquainted  with  Bisho{» 
Chase,  of  awakening  fear,  and  causing  the  suspicion  that  an  at- 
tempt was  to  be  made  to  spring  upon  tlie  respondent,  suddenly 
and  unexpectedly,  the  repealed  Canons  of  18-j8,  by  which  he 
would  be  placed  in  the  power  of  the  Bishop  as  his  judge,  who,  at 
his  pleasure,  might  suspend  him,  should  he  "  neglect  or  refuse  to 
appear."     (See  Canons,  pages  46  and  47.)  ' ' 

Hence,  anxious  for  a  canonical  issue  of  all  the  matters  affecting 
him,  and  equally  deprecating  extra-canonical  proceedings  against 
him,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  secure  the  one  and  frustrate  the  other, 
should  they  be  attempted,  the  respondent  crossed  the  State  to  Ga- 
lena, and  was  there,  with  his  Counsel,  ]>unctually  at  the  date  ap- 
pointed ;  but  found  neither  Court  nor  Bishop  to  meet  him. 

On  the  morning  of  the  next  day,  June  lOth,  he  received  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Galexa,  19th  of  June  1846. 
Rev.  W.  F.  AValker  : 

Rev.  Sir — You  are  hereby  notified  that  the  Court  for  the  trial  of  the 
case  wherein  you  are  defendant,  against  certain  charges  as  specified  in  a 
presentment  against  you,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1844,  will  open  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Galena,  at  hidf  past  (3)  three  o'clock  (P. 
M.)  this  afternoon. 

Your  friend  and 

Obedient  servant  in  the  Lord,  ,  »rw 

PHILANDER  CHASE,;    -f 

Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Church  in  Illiiiois.i,.t 

The  point  that  was  to  be  met  was  now  foreseen.  But,  having 
ascertained  that  the  civil  power  might  be  successfully  invoked  to 
stay,  by  injunction,  from  the  unlawful  extreme  that  seemed  to  be 
threatened,*  the  respondent  was  i^ronipt  in  his  compliance  with  the 
above  notice. 

The  Bishopt  took  the  chair  as  Court  and  Judge  !  declared  thfe 
Court  open,  and  called  on  the  respondent  to  plead  to  the  "  Indict- 
ment," which,  however,  Avas  not  read.  Thereupon  the  respondent 
rose,  and  begged  to  introduce  J.  A.  McDougal,  Esq.,  Attorney 
General  of  the  State,  his  Counsel,  through  wliom  he  would  an- 

*  On  this  subject  of  the  inlerpo«i(icn  of  courts  of  laiv,  so  "  as  to  ol  liL'e  the  members 
of  any  religious  society  to  abide  by  tlie  true  inttat  and  meaning  of  their  own  Church 
Law,  and  thereby,  as  betveni  such  members,  makctlint  Church  Law  tlie  law  of  the  land," 
the  learned  author  of '•  Contributions  to  the  l-"x;clesiastical  History  of  the  L.  S.  A.," 
himself  an  accomplished  civilian,  thus  ohuerves  —"The  courts  of  Jaw  enter  not  into 
investigations  of  ortliodoxy  and  heterodo.xy,  they  undertake  not  to  settle  what  is,  or  is 

not  doctrinal ly  tnic  in  religion; but  into  Church  law  and  Church 

usage,  into  the  polity  of  the  Church,  into  the  rules  of  conduct  wherebv  itj?  members 
have  voluntarily  bound  tliemselvos,  by  joining  the  Church,  our  courts  of  justic«do 
and  will  inquire  :  and  they  will  uphold  such  rules,  and  deem  every  member  of  the  so- 
ciety to  be  bound  by  them,  so  lonR  as  such  Church  regulations  or  canons  violate  no 
principle  of  the  constitutional,  cemmon,  or  statute  law  of  the  laad.'^—EccU.siastkat 
Contributions,  page  286. 

The  same  author,  on  page  364  of  the  same  work,  says,—"  Under  onr  system  of  gov- 
ernment, a  bishop  has  no  right,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  try  a  clergyman  fhe  is  entitled 
to  be  tried  by  his  brother  presbyters,  because,  among  other  reasons,  they  are  supposed  to 
have  some  sympathy  with  him,  and  to  understana  from  experience  something  of  the 

troubles  he  has  to  encounter It  is  of  vast  impostance  to  the  well-being 

of  the  Church  to  preserve  their  just  rights  to  that  large  body  of  real  operatives,  the  pa- 
rochial clergy." 

t  What  tollows,  to  the  adjournrniit  from  Galena  t  o  Chicago^  is  from  a  repori  made 
at  the  time  by  competent  hands. 


71 

« 

8wer,  so  far  as  it  might  be  proper  for  liim  to  make  answer  in  the 
case.  Tlie  Bishop  replied  tiiat  the  Counsel  offered  would  be  re- 
ceived, if  qualified  according  to  the  Canon  ;  and  called  for  the 
reading  of  the  Canon  on  that  subject.  Whereupon  "J.  T.  Wor- 
Ithingtou,  Counsel  for  presenters,"  read  Sect.  4  of  Canon  XIV.  of 
1838,  (page  4G,)  and  remarked  that  the  law  of  1838,  being  that 
under  which  the  Presentment  wa^  made,  was  that  by  which 
the  cnse  was  to  be  tried.  "  The  Court  being  informed  that  Gen. 
McDougal  is  not  a  conununing  member  of  the  Church,  he  was  not 
received  as  Counsel."* 

The  respondent  made  answer  that  there  Avas  now  no  such  law 
in  force  as  that  which  had  been  read;  that  Canon  XIV.  of  1838 
was  unqualifiedly  repealed  Ijy  Sect.  13  of  Canon  I.  of  1845,  (page 
6  ;)  and  that  in  the  Canon  under  which  alone  any  trial  might  be 
had,  there  was  no  restriction  whatever  on  the  subject  of  Counsel, 
except  that  the  presenters  should  not  appear  by  Counsel  unless  the* 
defendant  should  exercise  thdt  privilege.  (Sect.  11,  page  6.) 
Moreover,  tliat  he  had  been  taken  by  surpinse  by  the  question  thus 
raised,  for  that  he  had  been  assured  by  the  Counsellors  for  the  pre- 
senters in  Chicago,  neither  of  whom  were  comnmnicauts  in  the 
Church,  that  the  holding  of  a  Court  under  the  Canon  of  1838  was 
not  contemplated ;  that  the  Bishop  had  given  his  sanction  to  this 
view  by  the  statement  above  given,  that  "  under  the  new  Canon  he 
was  not  required  to  be  present  at  either  of  Mr.  "W.'dker's  trials  ;" 
that  thus  assured,  lie  had  induced  Counsel  to  accompany  him  all  the 
way  from  Chicago,  at  a  great  sacrifice  to  his  Counsel  of  time  and  mo- 
ney ;  that  the  point  made  was  of  real  importance,  and,  if  main- 
tained, would  deprive  him  of  a  just  and  canonical  right,  and  leave 
him  dependant  on  his  own  efforts,  which,  not  having  been  contem- 
plated, he  was  not  prepai-ed  foi*.  He,  therefore,  asked  that  the 
question  thus  raised  be  treated  as  an  independent  preliminary 
question,  not  as  a  part  of  the  case,  and  that  he  be  permitted  to  be 
heard  in  respect  to  it  by  Counsel ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  suggested 
that  even  Sect.  4  of  Canon  XIV.  of  1838,  need  not  of  necessity  be 
interpreted  so  rigidly  a?  it  had  been  ;  that  it  was  intended  to  ren- 
der the  reception  of  Counsel,  qualified  in  a  certain  way,  obligatory 
on  the  Court,  but  not  to  prevent  the  reception  of  Counsel  without 
such  qualification,  should  the  Court  so  please ;  deeming  the  clause 
as  intended  tor  the  protection  of  the  Court  simply,  and  thei'efore 
within  its  discretion. 

During,  and  before  the  conclusion  of,  the  argument  by  the  re- 
spondent, the  "  Judge"  decided  against  him.  Upon  Avhich  the  re- 
spondent observed  that  the  decision  having  been  made  while  he 
was  arguing  the  point,  further  argument  seemed  to  be  unnecessary. 

The  Counsel  for  the  presenters  replied  as  before  ;  and  stated 
that  the  privilege  asked  could  not  be  granted,  though  he  would  not 
take  the  respondent  by  surprise.  He  would  be  in  favqr,  thej'efore,, 
of  giving  him  time  to  prepare  for  his  own  defence.       ,'  ^  ,;  •'        .,{t 

The  respondent  said  this  would  be  neccsstiry,  in  case  the  decisiort 
of  the  Bishop  already  given  was  maintained  ;  and  that  he  believed 
he  should  be  able  to  satisfy  "  the  Court"  that  his  view  of  Canon 

'  Courti  Record. 


XIV.  of  IH'iS  was  just  mmI  triK*.  from  u<»uge  in  civil  pouits,  and 
from  the  pruotice  in  civil  legislatures — law-interpreters  and  law- 
makers. 

To  this  "  the  Court"  replied, — '•  This  Court  is  a  Court  of  equity, 
and  will  not  regard  the  tochnicid  I'ules  of  Canon  or  Statute  law; 
these,  therefore,  will  Ik-  submitted  in  vain  ;  i-iiles  of  equity  alone 
will  jrovern  flii#  Court.  1  hope  Mr.  W.  will  not  introduce  any 
sueh  matters  ;  it  will  not  be  so  well  ibr  him  thus  to  meet  the  case  ; 
he  should  meet  the  case  otherwise;  and  I  hjpe  he  will  prove  him- 
self clear  of  the  charires.      1  intend  to  (h'cide  imjjartially." 

The  Court  then  said  the  jury  would  not  be  called  till  the  next 
day.  "  Thereon  he  gave  .\ir.  W.  time,  till  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  of 
June  -iOth,  1846. 

"  The  Court  then,"  at  5  o'clock,  P.  M.,  "  ailjourned  to  meet  in 
the  same  place  at  lU  o'clock,  A.  M.,  of  June  20,  184G."* 

The  next  morning,  June  20th,  "  the  Court"  took  his  Chair  pur- 
suant to  adjournment,  and  ajipointed  the  Re^'.  C.  Dresser  to  act  as 
Clci'k  jijro  te)i/. 

The  minutf'jsof  the  day  before  having  been  read,  "the  Court"  enqui- 
red if  there  wei'e  any  objections  to  them  :  upon  which  the  respond- 
ent observed  that  he  wished  to  say  nothing  respecting  them;  that 
he  intended  neither  to  say  nor  do  any  thing  which  might  be  con- 
strued into  an  acknowledgment  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  "  Court ;" 
that  he  had  bel'ore  entered  a  Ibruial  jn'otest  against  it,  and  that  he 
adhered  to  the  views  then  entertained ;  that  he  would  make  no  ob- 
jections to  the  minutes  as  not  stating  things  substantially  as  they 
took  place  ;  but  his  objections  went  to  the  right  of  the  Court  to  ad- 
judicate upon  the  matter  in  question. 

"Mii.  WoKTHiNGTON. — Then  I  ask  the  Court  to  sign  the  min- 
utes.     . 

"TijE  Court. — I  shall  sign  the  minutes  as  they  are." 

The  Minutes  having  been  disposed  of,  "the  Court"  said  he  would 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject  postponed  from  last  eve- 
ning, and  that  the  respondent  would  then  be  heard.  ; 

■The  respondent  opened  by  an  allusion  to  the  position  in  which  he  stood. 
He  stated  that  he  had  prepared  himself  with  (•ounscl,  upon  whom  he  had 
relied ;  and  he  would  be  believed  when  he  said  that  he  was  taken  by  surprise 
in  having  his  counsel  excluded  from  appearing  on  his  behalf,  in  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  subject  then  in  hand.  Tliat  surprise,  he  stated,  was  great- 
ly heightened  by  the  fact  that  he  had  been  justified  in  anticipating  a  con- 
trary course ; 

1st,  By  a  precedent  furnished  by  the  same  "  Court,"  in  a  case,  the  aual» 
ogy  between  which  and  that  under  consideration  was  so  close,  in  refer- 
ence to  tlie  same  matter,  as  to  make  it  conclusive  ;t 

2d,  By  the  assurances  given,  by  the  Counsellors  for  the  presenters,  that 
the  case  would  be  tried  under  the  Canon  of  18-15;  and  by  the  decl.ara- 
tion  of  "the  Court"'  himself,  that  "under  the  new  Canon  he  was  not  re- 
quired to  be  present  at  either  of  Mr.  AV;dker's  trials."'  thereby  recognizing 
the  abohtinn  of  the  old  Canon,  and  the  authority  of  the  new  in  respect  to 
the  then  proposed  trial ;  and, 

3d,  By  the  practice  of  the  presenters,  tolerated  in  the  very  ra.'ie  under 
con$iderajtion ;  Coiin.spl  having  been  ;illowed  to  ihem  in  direct  oontmriety 

••  C'nurt's  Rprord. 
»  The  r!i«e  nf  Becker  (Appendix,  M  )  wa«  here  reffrrrd  to 


73 

to  what  the  respondent  had  been  denied ;  two  out  of  three  of  their  coun- 
sellors not  being  communicants  in  the  Church,  one  of  them  not  even  an 
attendant  on  her  services;  while  the  Counsel  offered  by  him  was  not  only 
an  attendant  on  the  services  of  the  Church,  but  her  liberal  supporter,  her 
true,  and,  it  was  hoped,  through  Grod's  grace,  might  soon  become  her  loy- 
al son. 

He  conclu.led  that  he  had,  therefore,  a  right  to  believe  that  the  Coun- 
sel whom  he  had  offered  would  not  be  denied  him ;  yea,  that  he  had  no 
right  to  anticipate  that  such  a  question  would  be  raised.  Hence,  he  had 
never  for  a  moment  supposed  that  he  should  be  called  upon  to  make  an- 
swer for  himself.  He  felt  that  he  was  now  disqualified  for  the  task.  Ho 
had  given  to  the  subject  but  a  few  hours'  consideration,  and  the  main 
points  connected  with  it  lay  in  a  proiession  to  which  he  was  well  nigh  a 
stranger.  More,  that  the  uuitteis  pending  were  of  such  vast  importance 
to  him,  that  it  might  well  be  presuni«d,  from  his  known  temperament, 
that  his  feelings  would  be  too  deeply  wrought  upon  to  allow  that  he 
should  even  ivttcinpt  to  make  answer  tor  himself.  But,  he  said,  the  ne- 
cessity being  laid  upon  him,  in  weakness  and  much  fear,  he  must  proceed ; 
stating  in  ailvance,  as  a  bar  to  any  improper  interpretation  of  what  might 
fall  from  him,  that.  If  his  feelings  should  betray  hun  into  any  seemingly 
harsh  or  unkind  expressions,  he  hoped  they  would  be  overlooked  and 
forgiven,  in  view  of  his  ])osItion,  especially  when  he  gave  the  assurance 
that  he  would  not  willingly  or  intentionally  injure  the  feelings  of  any  one. 

"The  Cottrt — {Here  interrupting.) — It  is  thebetterway,  Mr.  Walker, 
for  you  to  go  on  and  state  what  you  have  to  say,  and  the  Court  will  hear 
you. 

"Mr.  Walkkr. — I  wished  to  make  these  observations  in  explanation 
of  any  remarks  that  might  fall  from  me. 

"  The  Court. — The, Court  will  hear  you  so  long  as  you  are  in  order ; 
but,  when  you  shall  say  any  thing  improper,  the  Court  will  of  course  stop 
you.  The  Court  sits  to  hear  and  do  justice  ;  but  it  cannot  listen  to  any 
thing  out  of  place." 

The  respondent  then  argued  against  the  jurisdiction  of  "the  Court" 
before  which  he  then  was,  substantially  as  follows : 

All  Courts,  ecclesiastical  or  otherwise,  are  the  creatures  of  law.  By 
law.  Courts  arc  created  and  invested  with  all  their  authority;  and  upon 
the  same  law,  their  existence  and  authority  continually  depend.  As  there 
could  be  no  civil  Court  without  a  municipal  law,  so  there  can  be  no  ec- 
clesiastical Court  without  a  Canon  law. 

When  a  law  is  repealed  its  existence  ceases,  and  every  thing  depend- 
ing thereon  must  fall,  unless  preserved  by  some  excepting  or  saving  en- 
actment ;  an  authority  or  juristllctlon  resting  in  the  repealed  law,  falls 
with  the  law  repealed. 

This  is  a  rule  universally  recognized,  and  its  operation  is  constantly 
witnessed  in  the  course  of  uumicipal  legislation. 

In  a  few  instances,  the  question  has  come  before  the  civil  courts,  and, 
in  every  instance,  the  rule  contended  for  has  been  recognized  as  unques- 
tionably true.  That  there  are  not  more  decisions  on  the  same  point,  i.-i 
owing  to  the  very  obvious  character  of  the  rule  putting  it  above  question. 

In  Harrison's  Digest,  vol.  3,  p.  2063,  It  Is  said,  that  "  no  proceedings 
can  be  had  under  a  repealed  statute,  though  commenced  before  the  re- 
peal." 

Bacon's  Abridgment,  vol.  6,  p.  372,  quotes  tie  decision  of  fho  King's 
Bench  in  Miller's  case,  in  which  the  Court  held,  tiat  "  no  act  of  jurisdiction 
oould  be  done  by  the  Sessions  after  the  repeal  of  the  statute,  though  the 
proceedings  had  begun  before." 

The  eaine  casM  is  reported  in  T7m.  BIack?toae's  Eej>orts,  ■''ol.  1,  in 
•which  *-fce  Co-art  say,  "VoThiPj;  i?  iuore«"Ie«r  thsv:  ♦>.!*•  ■inr:J"':":i'n  '?  n'^'w 
jT'Sne." 

10 


'74 

Bacon's  Abridgment,  page  .T72,  before  referred  to,  lays  down  the  rule, 
"  That  if  a  statute  directs  that  trom  and  after  the  passiii";  of  it,  no  person 
shall  be  subject  to  prosecution  by  indictment  for  a  ]>articular  offence  at 
common  law,  it  nuts  an  end  to  the  prosecution  ot  that  offence,  com- 
menced and  carried  to  conviction  before  the  passing  of  the  statute,  but  in 
which  no  judgment  has  been  pronounced."  This  text  in  Bacon  is  taken 
from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  in  "  the  CJom- 
monwealth  vs.  Duane ;"  reported  1st  Binney,  p.  601. 

Upon  the  same  page  in  Bacon,  it  is  further  stated,  that  "after  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  taking  from  the  Courts  of 
the  United  States  jurisdiction  in  certain  cases,  no  jurisdiction  can  be  ex- 
ercised by  those  Courts  in  such  cases,  though  suits  had  been  previously 
brought,  and  were  depending  when  the  amendment  was  adopted." 

This  rule,  exactly  in  point  in  this  case,  rests  upon  the  authority  of  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.,  in  the  case  of  "  Hollings- 
worth  vs.  the  State  of  Virginia;"  reported  Dallas,  vol.  3,  p.  381-2,  in 
which  "the  Court  delivered  a  unanimous  opinion  that  there  could  not  be 
exercised  any  jurisdiction  in  any  case  of  the  kind  past  or  future." 

Hill's  Reports,  vol.  1,  p.  324,  gives  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  in  the  ease  of  Butler  vs.  Palmer,  m  which  the 
precise  rule  now  contended  for  is  thus  laid  down  :  "  The  repeal  of  a  stat>- 
ute  conferring  jurisdiction,  takes  away  all  right  of  proceeding  under  the 
repetded  statute,  even  In  regard  to  stiits  pending  at  the  time  of  the  repeal." 

And  Cowan,  Judge,  in  the  same  case,  p.  334  of  Hill  as  above,  says : 
"  The  amount  of  the  whole  comes  to  this,  that  a  repealing  clause  is  such 
an  express  enactment,  as  necessarily  divests  all  inchoate  rights  which 
have  arisen  under  the  statute  which  it  destroys.  These  rights  are  but 
an  incident  to  the  statute,  and  fall  with  it,  unless  saved  by  express  words 
in  the  repealing  clause.     *     *    *     * 

"  The  statute  being  simply  repealed,  the  very  stock  on  which  they 
were  engrafted  is  cut  down,  and  there  is  no  rule  of  construction  by  which 
they  can  be  saved." 

And  on  page  336,  he  further  says,  "  It  seems  to  be  equally  a  violation 
of  principle  as  of  authority  to  say,  that  any  one  of  its  provisions  can  be 
enforced  or  executed  after  it  has  been  repealed  by  a  general  clause." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  rule  recognized  by  these  authorities,  and 
here  insisted  on,  is  no  technicality  in  law ;  but  rests  on  laws  and  princi- 
ples that  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  human  authority.  It  rests  in  that 
great  truth,  that  the  power  that  gives  may  also  take  away ;  that  the  power 
that  creates  a  Court  and  clothes  it  with  authority-,  may,  at  any  instant, 
withdraw  that  authorlt}-,  and,  If  proper,  confer  it  on  another. 

By  virtue  of  law — the  power  of  the  Church  in  Convention — this  Court 
was  created  and  invested  with  a  specific  jurisdiction.  The  power  of  the 
Church  in  Convention  has  abrogated  that  law,  and  thereby  withdrawn 
from  this  Court  the  charter  or  commission  under  which  it  was  created. 
The  law  of  1838  was  the  "power  of  attorney"  from  the  Convention  to 
this  Court ;  that  "  power  of  attorney"  having  been  revoked  or  rescinded, 
this  Court  is  without  authority ;  as  it  regards  jurisdiction  in  this  case,  it  is 
dead. 

It  is  not  contexded  that  the  rights  of  the  presenters 
have  been  vitiated  or  in  any  degree  impaired;  but  that 
THEIR  REMEDY  IS  CHANGED.  Their  Case  is  simply  dismissed  in  one 
Court,  and  they  are  directed  to  another  ;  a  very  common  occurrence  in 
civil  courts.  And  to  obviate  all  difficulty  on  this  score,  it  was  proposed  to 
bring  the  case,  now  out  of  Court,  immediately  Into  a  Court  canonically 
•constituted;  that  Is,  constituted  under  the  Canon  of  1845,  and  to  ask  that 
it  be  tried,  with  the  presentment  of  184H.  But  there  being  now  no  au- 
thority in  C'anon  for  this  Court  to  act,  its  acts  mu?t  be  totally  void  of 
force  or  effect  as  regards  this  rcspnnflcnt.  •*  " 

Again,  proceedings  in  this  case  have  been  discontinued; 


75 

,-  Ist,  For  the  reason  that  on  the  day  named  in  the  Citation,  to  wit :  on 
the  8th  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1844,  at  the  Vestry-room  of  St.  James' 
Church  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  the  respondent  was  preparei],  willing,  and 
desirous  to  respond  and  answer  to  the  charges  and  specifications ;  but 
there  was  no  Court  then  and  there  convened ;  nor  did  the  Court  ap- 
pointed to  try  these  specifications  and  charges  convene  at  the  place 
aforesaid  at  any  time  thereafter ;  whereby  the  said  Court,  and  this  cas« 
depending  before,  it  expired  ; 

2d,  Because,  on  the  12th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1844,  in  a  letter  address- 
ed to  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  the  respondent  fulfilled  the  condition  up- 
on which,  in  his  letter  to  the  respondent  of  the  same  date,  and  in  a  verbal 
conversation  on  board  of  the  steamboat,  the  said  Bishop  had  made  the,  re- 
mission of  these  charges  and  specifications  to  depend ;  and  they  thereby 
ceased  to  exist.     (See  letters  herein  referred  to,  on  pages  65  and  64.) 

3d,  Because  four  of  the  presenters  in  this  case,  on  the  27th  day  of  Au- 
gust, A.  D.  1844,  withdrew  irom  the  presentment,  on  the  ground  that  the 
condition  upon  which  they  were  induced  to  concur  in  it,  had  not  been 
met,  (see  letter,  page  66 ;)  by  which  it  failed  to  be  the  expression  ol  a 
majority  of  the  committee  of  enquiry ;  by  which  its  existence  was  termin- 
ated.* 

4th,  Because,  afterwards,  in  June,  A.  D.  1845,  in  obedience  to  a  notifii 
cation  from  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  the  "Judge"  and  "Court'* 
now  addressed,  (see  first  paragraph  of  the  letter  of  June  12th,  page  64,) 
the  respondent  appeared  at  the  city  of  Springfield,  in  this  State,  then  and 
there  to  answer  to  these  specifications  and  charges,  and  was  then  and  there 
ready,  willing,  and  anxious,  to  be  heard  respecting  them ;  notwithstand- 
ing which,  this  "Court"  did  not  then  and  there  convene ;  nor  was  any  op- 
portunity ofiered  to  the  respondent  then  and  there  to  appear  and  answer 
to  these  charges  and  specifications ;  and,  therefore,  he  said  that,  by  rea- 
son of  these  premises  last  mentioned,  he  had  good  reason  to  believe  that 
«aid  charges  and  specifications  had  been  abandoned ;  and  he  insisted  that, 
by  the  operation  of  rules  recognized  in  all  like  causes,  this  Court  expired, 
and  this  cause  was  discontinued. 

5th,  and  last,  Because,  after  these  charges  and  specifications  were  pre- 
ferred, the  respondent,  by  one  of  the  plainest  rules  of  equity,  as  well  as 
by  the  plain  intent  of  the  Canon,  was  entitled  to  a  hearing,  trial,  and  de- 
termination of  his  case,  without  delay  ;  and  notwithstanding  he  never  so- 
licited for  delay,  never  consented  to  postponement — but  was,  at  all  times, 
ready,  willing,  and  anxious  to  be  heard  In  the  premises ;  yet  the  Court 
never,  until  this  19th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1846,  convened  or  offered  to 
examine  into  these  matters  alledged  against  him;  thereby  permitting  these 
charges  and  specifications  to  sleep  for  the  space  of  more  than  two  years, 
and  now  to  be  revived  against  him  ;  all  of  which,  he  insisted,  is  manifestly 
unjust,  and  against  the  established  rules  of  law  universally  recognized. 

In  consideration  of  each  and  every  of  these  reasons,  the  respondent  in- 
sisted that  this  case  had  no  existence,  so  far  as  Canon  XIV.  of  1838  and 
this  Court  are  concerned  ;  that  it  is  dead. 

Relying  upon  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  as  intei-preted  by  rules  uni- 
versal in  their  character ;  relying  upon  Canons  confessedly  in  force,  whose 
meaning  Is  unquestioned,  for  protection  in  his  just. rights — for  protection 
against  Episcopal  usurpation  and  oppression,  on  the  one  hand,  and  lay 
aggression  on  the  other,  the  respondent  insisted  that  that  tribunal  had  no 
authority  to  sit  in  judgment  on  this  case  ;  protested  against  Its  further 
proceeding ;  and  claimed  for  himself  a  trial  according  to  the  Canon  of  the 
Diocese,  adopted  in  Convention  June,  A^  D.  184-5,  and  a9w  poijjfessedljf 


in  force. 


-T'-J' ■;   -■1 


J.  T.  Worthington  rising  to  reply,  ^e'  respondent  enquired  of  "  the 

*  Had  the  four  who  withdrew  concurred  in  the  presentment  unconditional  Iv.  it  is  ad  - 
mitted  that  their  withdrawal  would  have  hccn  vofd  of  force  with  respect  to  that  instru- 
ment.   But  here  the  case  was  otherwise.    Hence  the  validity  ot  their  act  of  ^vithdrawaJ 


76 

Court"  whether  he  might  be  permitted  to  answer  Mr.  W.,  should  it  seem 
to  him  necessary.  '■  The  Court"  intimating  that  he  would  not  be  heard 
again  in  reply,  the  respondent  made  a  few  additional  remarks,  and,  by 
reading  a  letter  from  an  able  jurist,  one  cf  the  Standing  Committee 
of  the  Diocese,  sustaining  the  position  he  had  taken,  closed  his  argument. 

"  Me.  Worthixgton. — The  only  question  wc  are  to  discuss  here^  is  as 
to  the  jurisdiction ;  that  is  the  only  point,  and  the  only  one  to  which  I 
shall  direct  the  few  remarks  1  am  to  make.  The  gentleman  has  spoken 
of  being  surprised  in  having  to  take  this  matter  up  in  this  way,  and  at  this 
time;  but  I  am  convinced  that  this  point  was  not  prepared  here  :  it  haa 
been  prepared  before  ;  and  the  surprise  cannot  be  so  great.  The  ability 
of  the  gentleman's  argument  is  such,  and  evinces  so  much  labor,  that  I 
cannot  believe  it  was  prepared  here. 

Mr.  Walker. — It  has  been  prepared  since  the  adjournment  last  night 

Mr.  Worthing  ton. — I  acknowledge  my  error,  and  in  doing  so,  I  pay 
the  highest  compliment  to  the  gentleman. 

The  gentleman  has  spoken  of  the  feeling  under  which  he  labors  in  this 
case ;  that  is  natural.    But  I  have  no  feeling  in  this  matter.    I  should  be 

flad  to  be  spared  the  performance  of  the  duty  which  devolves  upon  me- 
am  no  prosecutor;  I  stand  here  as  the  advocate  of  the  Church,  and  my 
duty  is  plain.  I  make  no  argument  but  to  the  Court,  and  to  the  question 
before  the  Court  for  its  present  consideration.  I  shall  make  no  addres* 
for  the  benefit  of  other  persons,  and  turn  my  back  upon  the  Court.  Ha» 
the  Court  jurisdiction,  and  should  this  case  bo  tried  V  These  are  the  ques- 
tions to  be  determined. 

Mr.  Worthington  then  went  into  an  argument  of  considerable  length,  to 
show  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Court  to  go  on  and  try  this  case,  under 
the  old  Canon  of  1838;  that  the  gentleman  had  prepared  himself  and  se- 
lected his  triers  under  that  Canon,  and  it  could  do  hira  no  injustice  to  be 
tried  under  it ;  that  if  the  case  was  not  tried  under  the  present  proceed- 
ing, it  would  probably  never  be  tried,  and  the  Church  would  sufier.(!)  The 
assurances  oi  counsel  to  the  gentleman  are  not  binding :  they  might  have 
been  wrong.  This  Court  is  to  decide.  The  Bishop  might  have  been 
wrong,  too,  in  his  opinion ;  and  if  so,  he  should  change  it,  and  act  accord- 
ingly. 

The  Bishop. — If  the  question  is  whether  this  Court  has  jurisdiction,  I 
say  yes.  The  Court  is  in  existence.  So  far  as  this  case  is  concerned,  I 
declare  it  in  existence,  and  demand  assessors. 

Mr.  AVorthington. — We  have  only  a  copy  of  the  presentation.  If 
Mr.  Walker  will  admit  the  copy,  I  presume  the  case  can  be  tried.  If  not, 
we  must  have  it  continued,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  the  original. 

Mr.  Walker. — We  were  instructed  by  the  Bishop  to  be  ready  for  tri- 
al, at  this  place  and  at  this  time  ;  that  the  case  would  be  tried  at  all  events ; 
and  if  we  were  not  ready,  we  should  have  to  abide  the  consequences.  Af- 
ter this  admonition,  it  seems  strange  that  the  prosecution  should  not  be 
prepared. 

Mr.  Worthington. — It  is  not  our  fault  that  the  original  presentment 
is  not  here.    Its  absence  would  be  good  cause  of  continuance. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  came  here  prepared  to  have  this  case  tried,  lliese 
charges  have  been  standing  since  1844,  and  I  have  never  been  able  to  ^et 
a  hearing.  I  have  sought  and  desired  investigation.  I  now  desire  a  lull 
canonical  investigation  of  everything.  It  has  given  me  great  trouble. 
From  the  assurances  I  received,  I  had  supposed,  until  very  recently,  that 

the  chaises  had  been  dismissed 

The  Bishop,  (interrupdi^ff.) — They  are  not  dismissed.  You  are  accus- 
ed of  immorality,  sir.  It  will  affect  you  through  life.  I  would  advise 
you,  as  a  friend,  not  to  be  finding  fault  with  this  Court,  but  to  have  these 
charges  investigated.  If  such  charges  were  made  agjunst  me,  nothing 
should  prevent  an  investigation.     I  would  almost  throw  this  book  (taking 


77 

up  a  large  Prayer  Book)  at  the  man's  head  who  should  stand  between  m« 
and  such  an  investigation. 

Mr.  Walker.— -1  now  address  j'ou  as  my  Bishop,  and  not  as  a  Court. 
I  have  determined  upon  the  course  I  shall  pursue,  under  a  full  sense  of  the 
duty  I  owe  to  myself,  my  family,  and  the  Church.  I  have  made  every 
preparation  for  a  hearing  of  this  case  at  this  time.  I  have  been  at  great 
expense  in  procuring  my  testimony,  in  preparing  and  coming  here  for  this 
trial.  I  have  almost  taken  bread  from  my  family  to  prepare  myself  for 
the  trial  of  this  case  here. 

I  was  going  on  to  remark  that,  until  recently,  I  had  supposed  these 
charges  had  been  dismissed — '- — 

The  Bishop,  (interrupting.) — They  arc  not  dismissed  !  Sit  down,  sir. 
I  call  you  to  order,  sir.  If  you  will  not  avail  yourself  of  my  advice,  I  will 
adjourn  this  case.     I  think  I  know  my  place. 

Mr.  Walkkr. — I  ask  pardon,  Bishop,  if  I  have  said  aught  that  is  im- 
proper, or  anything  that  is  calculated  to  create  unpleasant  emotions.  I 
did  not  intend 

The  Bishop,  (interruptimj.) — I  would  not  have  such  charges  against  me. 

Mr.  Walker. — All  I  can  do,  is  to  ask  that  my  protest  may  go  on 
record.* 

Mr.  Worthixgtox. — It  is,  perhaps,  proper  that  the  protest  should 
become  a  part  of  the  record ;  but  there  are  some  parts  of  it  to  which  I  ob- 
ject 

The  Bishop. — The  Court  will  read  over  that  protest.  If  it  be  proper, 
it  shall  go  on  the  record ;  but  I  will  not  have  anything  irrelevant  placed 
there.     You  are  weaving  toils,  sir,  to  entangle  yourself  with. 

Mr.  Walker. — They  have  been  woven  by  others,  sir. 

Mr.  Worthingtox. — The  protest  can  go  on  file. 
-*  The  Bishop. — Yes,  so  much  of  it  as  is  proper. 

The  consideration  of  the  case  was  then  postponed  until  the  24th  day  of 
August,  184G,  at  Chicago.f 

Under  the  above  terms,  the  respondent  concluded  to  retain  his 
protest.  He  felt  that,  if  he  should  throw  it  into  the  proposed  cru- 
cible of  revision,  it  might  subsequently  fail  to  exhibit  his  position 
correctly ;  and  therefore,  he  would  forego,  with  respect  to  it,  what 
he  had  asked, — certainly  what  was  offered. 

In  consequence,  the  following  correspondence  was  subsequently 
had: 

Chicago,  Aug.  22, 1846. 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  : 

Dear  Sir — I  wish  you  to  return  to  me,  to-day,  the  "  Protest"  which  you 
filed  by  permission  in  Court  at  Galena,  June  last,  against  my  decision. — 
After  filing  it,  I  permitted  you,  on  your  request,  to  take  the  Protest  with 
you,  for  the  purpose  of  making  some  corrections.  ^The  Protest,  having 
been  filed,  became  one  of  the  Papers  of  the  Coiul,  and  must  be  preserved 
as  such  in  the  oflice  of  the  Cour(. 

You  will  2)lease  return  it  to  me  forthwith. 

Your  faithful  serv't  in  Lord, 

PHILAIJDER  CHASE,  Bp. 

Chicago,  Aug.  22,  1846. 
To  the  Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.  : 

Dear  Sir — I  requested  that  the  "  Protest"  which  I  made  against  your 
decision  at  Galena,  might  be  embodied  in  the  records  of  yourself,  sitting 

•This  protest  embraced  substantially  the  argument  of  the  respondent  given  above. 

t  It  is  just  that  it  be  stated  again  that  the  above  account  of  this  case,  so  far  as  relates 
to  what  took  place  at  Galena,  is  from  a  report  made  at  the  time  by  one  whose  character 
and  standing  avouch  sufficiently  for  its  general  correctness.  It  its,  of  course,  for  the 
most  part,  but  an  abstract. 


78 

as  a  court,  and  it  was  clenieJ  me.  Permission  was,  however,  granted  to 
have  it,  under  certain  limitiitions — being  modified,  corrected,  and  portions 
of  it,  which  might  be  deemed  objectionable  or  irrelevant,  stricken  out — 
placed  on  file.  At  the  moment,  I  thougiit  I  would  copy  it,  and  allow  it 
to  go  among  your  pa[ier9  on  the  terms  named.  AV'ith  this  view,  I  retain- 
ed it  On  reflection,  my  convictions  with  rc?pect  to  it  were  changed.  I 
came  to  the  conclusion  that,  in  the  process  ot  revision  contemplated,  it 
was  not  unlikely  those  portions  of  the  "  Protest"  to  which  I  should  attach 
importance,  might  be  deemed  irrelevant  or  objectionable,  and  be  stricken 
out;  and  so  the  paper  that  should  finally  be  filed,  fail  to  exhibit  my  argu- 
ment as  it  was  made,  and  be  not,  therefore,  my  real  "  Protest."  I  came 
thus  to  the  determination  not  to  be  under  obligation  to  "the  coui-t"  for  favor 
on  this  wise  at  all.  That  which  I  had  asked  having  been  denied  me,  I 
resolved  that  I  cared  not.  on  the  whole,  to  avail  myself  of  what  was  offered 
in  its  stead.  The  original  is,  therefore,  one  of  my  private  papers,  and  is 
preserved  by  me  as  such.  I  have  made  no  copy  of  it,  and  have  not  now 
time  to  make  one. 

If  you  desire  a  copy  of  the  "Protest,"  and  can  cause  it  to  be  made,  I  shall 
allow  the  use  of  the  original,  at  my  own  rooms,  for  this  purpose. 
Faithfully  vours, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 
—  fi 

Chicago,  Hi,  Bishop's  Chamber,  Aug.  24,  184(5;->(, 

Rev.  Wm.  F.  Walker  :  j 

Your  letter  of  the  22d  inst.,  in  reply  to  my  requisition  of  the  same  day, 
that  you  should  forthwith  return  to  me  the  Protest  filed  by  you  in  court 
at  Galena,  in  June  last,  was  received  and  duly  considered. 

On  further  reflection,  my  opinion  is  unchanged.  I  insist  that  that  Pro- 
test became,  by  filing  at  your  request,  one  of  the  records  of  the  court,  and 
now  belongs  to  this  court. 

Therefore,  I  now  issue  this  my  positive  command,  that  you  return  the 
said  paper  to  me  this  day  by  3  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Signed,  PHIL.  CHA6E,  Bp.,      -i 

and  Judge  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Court,  i^ 

To  this  remarkable  letter  no  reply  was  given,  nor  attention  paid. 

On  Monday  morning,  August  24th,  about  9  1-2  o'clock,  the  re- 
spondent was  informed  by  the  person  who  served  on  him  the  above 
extraordinary  ecclesiastical  quasi  chancery  order,  that  the  Court, 
for  his  trial,  was  to  open  at  10  o'clock,  then  following,  in  Trinity 
Church,  and  that  the  Bishop  and  others  had  already  gone  there. 

Astonished  that  he  should  have  received  no  notice  of  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Court,  and  that  Trinity  Church  should  thus,  by  an  as- 
sumed right,  have  been  designated  as  the  place  for  holding  it,  with- 
out an  application  for  its  use,  either  to  tlie  Rector,  the  Wardens, 
or  Vestrymen  of  the  parish,  the  respondent  replied  that  Trinity 
Church  could  not  be  used  as  was  proposed  ;  that  neither  himself 
nor  the  officers  of  the  Church  would  consent  to  its  being  thus  taken 
possession  of. 

Trinity  Church  accordingly  remained  closed. 

Very  soon,  it  was  reported  that  the  Court  had  assembled  in  the 
basement  of  St.  James'  Church.  By  advice  of  cotmsel,  thes  respon- 
dent repaired  thither  without  delay,  , 

The  proceedings  there,  as  reported  for  the  respondent,  were  as 
follows : 

^>  Prayer  by  Bishop  Chase    J.  V.  Smith  was  then  appointed  Clerk ;  up- 


79 

on  which  the  Bishop  callod  for  the  minutes  and  record  of  the  Court  at 
Galena. 

Mr.  Worthington  moved  an  amendment  as  to  the  time  that  the  second 
Court  was  to  be  held,  to  wit:  "  That  the  trial  on  the  2d  presentment  be 
held  immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  on  the  Ist  presentment." 

The  amendment  was  ordered. 

The  Bishop  then  informed  the  assessors  that,  accoi-dinirto  Canon,  every 
thing  had  been  done  to  bring  on  the  trial  legally.  '•  I  am  authorised," 
said  he,  "to  appoint  time  and  place.  I  appointed  the  time,  to-day  ;  and 
Trinity  Church  the  place.  I  went  there,  and  found  the  ('hurch  shut.  I 
wrote  an  adjournment  to  St.  James'  Church,  immediately.* 

I  declare,  therefore,  that  this  Court  is  regularly  open  for  the  trial  afore- 
said. 

(To  the  Clerk.)     Let  the  names  of  the  assessors  be  called. 

Clerk  called  G.  P-  Giddinge,  James  De  Pui,  Joseph  L.  Darrow  :  each 
answered,  and  the  Bishop  declared  ■'  all  present." 

Mr.  Worthington. — I  ask  that  the  Defendant  be  called  by  the  Clerk. 

The  Bishop. — Let  Defendant  be  called. 

Clerk.— The  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker. 

Mb.  Walker. — Present. 

Mr.  Worthington. — About  a  paper  that  was  filed  at  Galena  by  Mr 
Walker.  I  made  application  for  it  to  Mr.  W.  there  soon  after.  1  wished 
it,  to  prepare  an  answer.     I  now  ask  to  file  and  read  an  answer. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  move  that  the  proceedings  at  Galena  be  read. 
^  The  Bishop. — I  wrote  a  note  to  Mr.  W.     I  ask  to  have  his  reply  read. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  renew  my  motion  relative  to  the  reading  of  the  pro- 
ceedings at  Galena. 

The  Bishop. — To  whom  belongs  our  records  on  file  ? 

Mr.  Giddinge. — Are  our  consultations  to  be  public  or  private  ? 

The  Bishop. — We  had  better  hear  what  I  want  to  have  known.  I 
have  made  application  for  a  paper,  and  been  denied.  Let  the  letters  be 
read. 

Mr.  Giddinge. — If  the  Court  were  properly  constituted,  the  paper  in 
question  [the  protest]  would  belong  to  the  Court. 

Mr.  Worthington. — This  question  is  to  be  decided  by  the  Judge 
alone.  Let  the  Bishop  decide.  This  is  not  a  question  for  the  jury.  I 
consider  the  desire  of  the  Bishop  coirect.  The  paper  filed  at  Galena  is 
part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  object  to  the  reading  of  the  letters  here  :  they  are  pri- 
vate letters. 

The  Bishop. — Let  the  letters  be  read. 

Mr.  Worthington. — They  are  official  letters.  (There  was  here  read 
the  first  two  of  the  last  three  letters  given  above ;  the  letter  from  the 
Bishop  to  Mr.  W.,  and  his  reply ;  also  a  copy  of  Mr.  Worthington's  ap- 
plication to  Mr.  W.  at  Galena  for  his  protest.) 

The  Bishop. — I  addressed  Mr.  W.  again  on  the  subject ;  has  it  been 
served  on  him  ? 

Mr.  Worthington. — It  has. 

The  Bishop. — Here  is  a  paper  which  I  request  to  be  read. 
r  (Here  was  read  the  above  quasi  Chancery  order.) 

Mr.  Walker. — I  deny  that  the  protest  was  ever  filed.  Here  is  the 
paper ;  there  is  no  mark  of  its  having  been  filed  upon  it  My  Counsel, 
General  McDougal,  who  was  present  in  Galena,  knows  that  the  protest 
never  went  into  the  hands  of  "  the  Court ;"  that  it  was'  always  in  my 
power  alone. 


'■♦The  notice,  posted  on  the  Church,  was  as  follows  : — 

"  The  Ecc'l  Court  appointed  to  be  held  this  day  at  Trinity  Church,  is  hereby  adj<MU%| 
ed,  to  meet  immediately  at  St.  James'  Church,  basement  story,  in  this  city,  Chicago. 

"  Half  paet  10,  A.  M.,  24th  AuRugt,  '46. 

Signed,  Ph'r  Chasb,  Bishop  and  Judge."  ■ 


80 

Mr.  WoRTHiNGTON. — I  will  read  the  record. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  propose  to  read  a  report  of  what  took  place,  made 
by  Mr.  Hempstead. 

Mk.  Worthington. — I  object. 

The  Bishop. — Let  it  not  be  read. 

Mr.  Wai-kkr. — I  appeal  to  the  assessors. 

Mr.  Darrow. — I  hope  the  record  will  be  read. 

The  Bishop. — Let  it  be  read. 

Mr.  Worthington  then  read  the  record  of  the  proceedings  at  Galena. 

The  Bishop. — Let  the  protest  be  filed. 

Mr.  Worthington. — Let  it  be  filed  as  in  June. 

Mr.  Walker. — Let  facts  be  given.  If  it  may  be  filed  entire,  I  oflFer 
it  to  be  filed  to-day.  I  have  no  objection  to  its  being  possessed  by  others, 
provided  I  have  a  copy  of  it.  On  the  condition  that  u  copy  of  it  be  made 
for  me,  I  will  allow  it  to  go  on  file. 

The  Bishop. — Let  it  be  filed  as  in  August. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  now  appeal  to  the  assessors  as  to  Avhether  I  can  be 
tried  under  the  Canon  of  1838  ;  begging  leave  to  read  my  protest  against 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court.  (The  proles/ was  here  read?)  I  now  give 
up  the  protest,  on  condition  that  it  be  copied,  and  the  original  or  a  copy 
returned  to  me. 

The  Bishop. — Let  it  be  copied  as  requested,  Mr.  Clerk.* 

Mr.  Walker. — I  ask  to  read  the  Canons  of  1838  and  1845. 

The  Assessors. — It  is  not  necessary. 

Mr.  Walker  here  read  a  letter  from  a  distinguished  jurist,  sustaining 
his  views  against  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  the  author  of  which  he  de- 
clined to  name. 

Mr.  Worthingtom. — Let  the  name  be  known. 

The  Bishop. — The  name  must  be  known.  It  is  one  of  the  Standing 
Committee ;  and  there  is  no  man  whose  advice  I  would  take  quicker. 
The  Court  will  make  the  name  known;  and  shame  to  him  who  would 
conceal  it  ;t  it  is  Judge  Treat.  Let  us  have  no  attempts  at  concealment. 
The  paper  belongs  to  the  Court  until  a  copy  be  made,  and  then  returned 
to  Mr.  Walker. 

Mr.  AVorthington  then  commenced  speaking  professedly  in  reply  to  the 
protest  of  Mr.  Walker. 

The  Bishop — (To  Mr.  Walker.) — Mr.  Walker,  let  there  be  no  whis- 
pering ;  we  attended  to  you  while  you  were  speaking. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  was  merely  seeking  to  know  what  the  gentleman 
is  speaking  to. 

Mr.  Worthington. — I  will  speak  plainly  enough  for  the  gentleman 
to  understand  mc.  (He  then  made  some  remarks,  and  read  his  reply  to 
Mr.  W.'s  protest ;  taking  the  ground  that  the  Bishop's  right  to  judge  and 
determine  this  case  is  divine,  inherent  in  his  office,  and  that  he  cannot  be 
divested  of  it  by  Convention,  nor  restricted  in  its  exercise ;  that  the 
Canon  purporting  to  do  this  would  be,  for  that  reason,  null.) 

Mr.  Walker. — Am  I  permitted  to  be  heard? 

The  Bishop. — Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  Walker  then  replied  to  Mr.  Worthington,  stating  that,  high 
Churchman  as  he  was,  he  felt  himself  unable  to  reach  even  the  first  round 
of  the  ladder  at  the  top  of  which  the  gentleman  had  rested  Episcopal  ju- 
dicial prerogative  ;  that  he  had  been  taught  to  regard  Canons  as  obliga- 
tory on  Bishops  as  well  as  Presbyters  and  Deacons ;  that  he  believed  the 
Episcopacy  to  be  one  thing,  and  Episcopal  government  another  thing; 
that  these  might  and  did  exist  separately,  though  in  our  Church  they  are 

*  The  riehts  of  the  respondent  do  not  appear  to  have  been  oared  for  since ;  neither 
the  protest  nor  a  copy  or  it  having  been  returned  to  him,  though  most  respectfully  eo- 
licited. 

t  The  letter  was  private ;  permission  was  however  civen  to  show  it  to  the  Bishop,  the 
Afisessors,  and  the  Counsd.    These  had  all  previoufly  stxn  it,  and  knew  ite  author 


81 

united  ;  that  the  Bishop  received  all  his  official  power  under  conditions ; 
th;it  the  Ordinal,  the  Rubrics,  and  the  Canons  settle  those  conditions, 
and  limit  his  prerogatives,  so  that  by  them  he  is  circumscribed  and  limit- 
ed in  their  exercise ;  that  in  this  case  the  law  was  clear,  by  which  the 
Bishop  was  without  jurisdiction  as  a  Court  to  hear  and  determine  it ;  that 
the  Bishop  is  not  above  law,  but  is  himself  amenable  to  it,  and  ther,efore 
is  bound  to  observe  it. 

Mr.  Walker  then  cited  the  Bishop's  letter,  intimating  that  he  should 
not  try  this  case. 

Mr.  "VVortiiixgton. — The  Bishop  does  not  say  in  his  letter  that  he 
has  no  right  to  sit.  The  Bishop  has  not  said  that  his  authority  is  cut  off. 
He  can  no  more  cut  off  his  authority  as  Judge,  than  he  can  his  authority 
to  ordain. 

Mr.  Walker. — Let  me  have  the  decision  of  the  Court. 

Mr.  Worthingtox. — There  was  a  decision  at  Galena. 

The  Bishop. — AVho  has  ever  heai-d  that  I  have  asserted  the  high  pre- 
rogatives that  have  been  the  subject  of  declamation  here  to-day  ? 

Mr.  Worthixgton. — It  is  decided,  I  believe,  that  the  trial  is  to  be 
held  under  the  Canon  of  1S38. 

The  Bishop. — Certainly,  as  long  as  I  am  alive. 

Mr.  Giddinge. — I  wish  to  understand  whether  the  Bishop  Is  to  de- 
cide that  question.  If  so,  I  must  decline  serving  as  an  assessor,  beheving 
it  to  be  uncauonical. 

The  Bishop. — No,  no;  nothing  is  decided;  time  is  given  for  consulta- 
tion. 

The  Court  is  adjourned  till  4  o'clock,  P.  M. 

At  4  o'clock,  P.  M.,  present  as  in  thei  morning.* 

The  Bishop. — ^I  declai-e  the  Court  now  open. 

Mr.  Giddixge. — I  understand  that  the  decision  has  been  given  that 
the  trial  is  to  be  under  the  Canon  of  18.S8  ? 

The  Bishop. — It  has  been  given,  at  Galena. 

Mr.  Giddixge. — I  am  bound  t6  object  to  a  decision  upon  that  subject 
independent  of  the  assessors.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  assessors  constitute 
a  part  of  the  Court.  The  Bishop  Is  not  the  Court.  I  consider  the  pro- 
ceedings under  the  Canon  of  18.38  uncauonical.  I  have  pi'cpared  an 
opinion  in  writing  on  the  subject,  which  I  had  intended  to  submit.  I  had 
hoped  to  have  an  opportunity  for  private  conference  on  this  subject, 
when  my  views  might  have  been  presented,  and  have  avoided  this  public 
dissent.  I  must  positively  and  without  reserve  decline  sitting  upon  this 
trial,  whatever  may  be  the  consequences  to  myself,  unless  the  respondent 
prefer  a  trial  under  the  Canon  of  1838. 

The  Bishop. — You  are  not  forced.  I  have  waited  for  you.  Did  you 
want  me  to  come  to  you  ?     I  am  very  happy  to  see  you  at  all  times. 

Mr.  Giddixge. — I  am  bound  to  take  this  course. 
>;  The  Bishop. — Your  opinion,  sir,  is  respected. 

Mr.  Giddixge, — (Taking  Jm  hat.) — I  must  take  leave  of  this  Court. 

The  Bishop. — Yes,  sir ;  you  are  excused. 

(To  the  other  Asspusors.) — The  majority  of  the  Court  can  now  proceed. 

Mr.  Darrow.— I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  am  of  the  same  opinion,  {at 
the  same  time  rising  and  taking  Ms  hat.) 

The  Bishop. — Do  you  speak  for  yourself  alone,  sir? 

Mr.  Darrow. — I  have  heard  Mr.  DePui  say  the  same. 

Mr.  De  Poi,  (rising  and  taking  his  hat.) — I  am,  sir,  of  the  ?ame  opin- 
ion. 

The  Bishop. — Very  well,  sir. 

Upon  this,  the  last  two  named  assessors  followed  Mr.  Giddinge,  and  left 
the  Bishop  sitting  alone. 

*  The  respondent  Uavins:  prepared  himself  with  a  Chancp.rv  injunctior,  ard  havicg^ 
tecnred  the  presence  of  the  Sheriff  to  execute  it  vrhen  ordered,  was  prepared  for  the 
■worst  frat  might  be  threatened,  and  thus  apceared  again  as  in  the  momiDg. 

11 


82 

The  Bishop,  (as  if  in  amazement.) — Well !  well !  this  is  a  new  era  in 

the  history  of  the  Church.     I  have  no  desire 1  regret  it  on  accoant  of 

the  gentleman  ;  1  regret  it  on  account  of  Mr.  Walker.  There  are  thincs 
on  record  against  him.  of  a  criminal  nature.*  I  must  now  desist.  I  should 
have  been  pleased  had  the  assessors  seen  fit  to  have  gone  on. 

Wkether  the  arguments  brought  forward  by  counsel  for  the  prosecu- 
tion have  weight  or  not,  I  know  not ;  they  are  mine. 

I  would  have  been  the  first God  forgive  me,  if  I  have  done  wrong. 

The  counsel  have  nothing  to  say,  of  cour.sc. 

It  only  remains  that  I  order  a  nolle  prosequi  to  be  entered  in  this  case, 
when  the  good  people  present  shall  have  joined  me  in  prayer,  for  forgive- 
ness wherein  we  have  done  wrong. 

Let  us  pray.     (Here  teas  a  prayer.) 

I  order  a  nolle  prosequi  to  be  entered,  Mr.  Clerk.  You  will  deliver  all 
papers  in  this  case  to  me. 

Thus  was  concludedf  what,  by  way  of  emphasis,  is  known  as 
"  the  Presentment  of  1844."  It  was,  in  fact,  however,  the  second 
of  that  year ;  another,  to  be  hereafter  noticed,t  having  prior  rank 
in  the  order  of  time. 

A  verdict  on  this  case,  for  which  a  canonical  Court  was  repeat- 
edly and  earnestly  sought,  but  in  vain,  will  now  be  rendered  by 
those  who  may  receive  these  papers.  This  verdict,  the  respondent 
will  hopefully  await,  for  reparation,  in  some  degree,  for  his  "  very 
much  injured  reputation."  By  it,  he  is  free  to  say,  he  will  be 
content  to  abide.  If  it  be  that  he  is  '•'  a  bad  man,"  '•  guilty  of  the 
crimes  in  the  presentation,"  according  to  Bishop  Cliase,  he  will 
submit,  and  withdraw  from  his  position,  so  far  as  he  may ;  if  it  be 
the  reverse,  and  that  he  has  been  "  wrongfully  accused,  the  Church 
and  the  world  ought  to  be"  thus  "  disabused,"  and  he  to  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  an  acquittal,  "  his  reputation  being  very  much  injured  aa 
it  is,"  by  the  means  of  these  presentments,  as  Bishop  Chase  has 
truly  said.     (Extract  from  letter  to  Sherwood,  page  36.) 

Till  this  time,  the  respondent  has  made  no  appeal  but  to  the  ec- 
clesiastical authorities  in  the  Diocese.  He  has  "  refrained  even 
from  o-ood  words"  to  his  friends  abroad,  and  from  acting  on  behalf 
of  many  interests  connected  with  the  Church,  which  he  was  wont 
to  cherish,  that  he  might  not  even  seem  to  be  attempting  to  make 
weight  for  himself,  by  enlisting  other  influences  than  those  immedi- 

•Soe  testimony  of  the  Bishop,  page  64. 

t  This  was  supposed  at  the  time,  and  is  still  maintained  ;  thongh,  lor  the  purpose  of 
•xhibitinp;  and  refuting  the  Charges,  the  respondent  asked  to  be  tried  on  them,  upon 
his  own  motion,  under  the  Canon  of  1845  ;  and  to  this  end  offered  to  waive  all  prelim- 
inaries, and  consider  himself  regularl)-  before  the  Court  in  the  presentment  containinz 
them,  accordine  to  what  is  stated  in  the  laet  paragraph  but  one  of  the  note  on  iMige  13, 
and  at  the  conclusion  of  the  matter,  immediately  preceding  the  note,  on  page  38. 

The  Counsel  for  the  presenters,  Mr.  Worthing'ton,  employed  by  the  Bishop,  and  who 
may  be  supposed  to  have  spoken  for  him.  tonka  ditfercnt  view,  which,  in  a  letter  to 
the  respondent,  he,  the  next  day,  presented  thus  : 

"  Consider,  sir,  the  effect  on  you  of  tjie  proceedings  In  Court  yesterday. 

"  You  were  not  iicr|uitted.  The  charges  still  stand  against  yon ;  and,  unhappily, 
there  is  now  but  one  way  to  be  relieved  from  them. 

"  You  were  presented  to  your  Bishop  by  a  high  and  honorable  Court.  Many  and 
reputable  witnesses  have  testified  against  you  in  confirmation  of  that  Court."  (Two 
wftnesses  only  were  adduced  by  the  presenters,  Mr.  and  Mri.  Kinzie;  and  thej  only 
"testified  in  confirmation  of  that  Court.")  "All  this  is  of  record  in  the  Bishop's 
Court. 

"  Yoti  are,  of  course,  prima  fade  guilty  in  hi.s  sight,  and  can  never,  under  existing 
circumstances,  demand  or  receive  from  him  letters  of  credit  to  another  Dioccse." 

It  is  proi)er  to  state  that  this  letter  was  a  gratuity  ;  uncalled  for  by  any  address  IJroiB 
the  respondent,  to  whom  its  author  was  well  nigh  a  total  stranger 

i  Appendix,  M. 


S3 

ately  and  neoefisarily  allied  to  his  cause.  It  is  kuowu  to  his  Right 
Rev.  Fathers,  and  to  his  brethren  of  the  clergy,  with  whom  he  has 
communicated,  that  he  has  never,  even  in  connections,  at  times, 
very  inviting,  obtruded  his  difficulties  upon  their  notice.  He 
knows  that  he  has  greatly  suffered  by  his  silence.  But  it  has  been 
his  choice  rather  to  bear  and  suffer  thus,  striving,  in  all  lawful  ways, 
for  the  restoration  of  unity  and  peace,  than,  by  act  or  word,  to  jjut 
"  a  stumbling-block"  in  the  way,  such  as  an  earlier  vindication 
might  have  proved.  Duty  to  himself,  to  his  family,  and  to  the 
Church,  it  must  be  now  everywhere  conceded,  requires  that  he 
should  "  keep  silence"  no  longer.  This,  therefore,  is  now  given  ; 
and  other  matters  pertaining  to  the  Church  in  Elinois  will,  at  a  fu- 
ture time,  follow,  should  the  sense  of  duty  remain  as  at  present. 


J,  page  21. 

Pages  55  and  56,  it  is  believed,  sufficiently  vindicate  the  admit- 
ted declaration.  Should  any  think  otherwise,  the  entire  of  the 
next  preceding  papers  may  be  referred  to ;  and  they,  surely,  will 
not  fail  to  satisfy  on  this  point. 


K,  page  21. 

The  letter  of  June  20th,  from  Buffalo,  may  be  seen  on  page  G(j; 
that  of  June  12th  on  page  64  ;  and  the  reply  of  the  respondent,  of 
the  same  date,  on  page  Go. 


L,  page  22. 

The  resolution  of  the  Testry  was  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  so  much  of  the  revenue  of  Trinity  Church,  arising  from 
pew  rents  and  offerings,  as  shall  remain  and  be  collected  after  payiug  the 
mterest  on  the  Church  debt,  contingent  expenses,  and  such  amount  as 
may  be  collected  for  special  purposes,  shall  be  paid  over  to  and  consti- 
tute the  Rector's  salary ;  this  resolution  to  take  effect  on  and  after  the 
24th  day  of  September,  1845,  it  being  the  first  day  of  the  third  quarter 
of  the  ecclesiastical  year  of  1845. — Records  of  Trinity  Ohurch. 


M,  page  28,  note. 

The  testimony  in  the  note  on  page  27,  and  the  case  for  which 
reference,  there  and  elsewhere,  has  been  made  to  this  place,  are 
thus  introduced  by  Bishop  Chase  in  his  testimony  on  the  trial : 

"  There  was  another  case  in  1844,  separate  from  all  that  have  been 
spoken  of.  It  related  to  Mr.  Walker's  disobedience  to  ray  orders  as  a 
Bishop,  requiring  him  to  sustain  his  charges  against  Mr.  Becker  in  per- 
son ;  on  which  charges  he  had  suspended  Mr.  Becker,  and  Mr.  B.  had 
appealed  to  me.    For  some  reason  or  other,"  &c.,  as  in  the  note  on  p.  27. 


84 

The  case  referred  to  must,  of  necessity,  occupy  considerable 
space  ;  but  as  it  contributed  essentially  to  give  tone  to  the  bearing 
of  Bishop  Chase,  subsequently,  towards  the  respondent, — as  out  of 
it  sprang  the  embodiment  of  charges  which  has  been  termed 
"  THE  presentment  of  1844," — as  a  prior  presentment,  the  first  of 
that  year,  was  immediately  connected  with  it, — and,  more  particu- 
larly, as  it  involves  pi'inciples  in  which  the  whole  body  of  the 
Church  have  an  interest,  it  will  be  presented  at  length. 

When  the  respondent  came  to  Chicago,  in  1843,  he  found,  in 
St.  James'  congregation,  the  person  whose  name  distinguishes  the 
case  now  to  be  presented.  A  German  by  birth,  though  quite  at 
home  in  the  English  language,  less  than  middle  aged,  active,  ar- 
dent, apparently  generous  and  ingenuous,  intelligent,  a  professed 
admirer  of  the  Church,  though  a  communicant  in  the  Lutheran 
connexion,  zealous  for  the  Church's  interests  and  interested  in  all 
that  pertained  to  them,  (as  Lutheran  offices  were  not  then  adminis- 
tered in  Chicago,)  of  social  pretensions,  claiming  to  be  consul  for 
the  Autocrat  of  Russia,  a  gentleman  in  address,  and  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  comparatively  full  leisure,  his  assiduous  attentions  were 
received  by  the  respondent,  his  professions  credited,  hospitalities 
were  exchanged  with  him, — in  short,  he  was  very  soon  regarded 
and  treated  by  the  respondent  as  a  warm-hearted,  generous  li'iend. 
All  the  freedom  and  familiarity  of  friendship  were,  therefore,  per- 
mitted and  manifested.  He  came  to  the  respondent's  house  and 
study  at  pleasure,  and  entered  into  all  his  interests,  opinions,  and 
wishes,  as  though  they  were  his  ovra. 

Some  time  after  this  perfect  freedom  of  intercourse  had  been  es- 
tablished, he  proposed  that  he  be  admitted  to  the  communion  of 
the  Church  pro  tempore,  declaring  that  he  could  not  attach  himself 
to  the  Church  peraianently,  because  of  his  determination  never  to 
renounce  Lutheranism,  in  which  he  and  his  fathers  before  liim  had 
been  reared.  The  respondent  referred  him  to  the  rubric,  at  the 
close  of  "  The  Order  of  Confirmation,"  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  to-wit :  "  There  shall  none  be  admitted  to  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, until  such  time  as  he  be  .confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  desi- 
rous to  be  confirmed ;"  and  told  him  that  he  was  bound  to  observe 
that  law  ;  that,  agreeable  as  it  might  be  to  his  feelings  to  grant  the 
proposal,  duty  forbade  it. 

In  frequent  interviews,  the  proposal  was  renewed,  and  urged  with 
especial  reference  to  Christmas,  then  approaching.  At  length,  the 
respondent  consented  to  address  the  Bishop  on  the  subject,  and  to 
abide  his  decision.  The  character  of  that  address  may  so  readily 
be  inferred  from  the  reply,  as  to  render  unnecessary  the  insertion 
of  the  letter  here. 

Under  date  of  Nov.  16th,  the  Bishop  made  answer  as  follows: 

"  Ml/  very  dear  Sir : — I  received  your  letter,  anti  answer  it  by  i-eturn 
of  post,  about  admitting  the  Lutherans  ^^ro  tern. 

"  The  subject  has  long  occupied  my  mind ;  (for  many  such  cases  there 
are  in  these  Western  States ;  and  I  suppose  also  tlirough  the  IT.  States ;) 
and  I  think  ought  to  be  decided  on  by  general  consultation  of  all  the 
Bishops.  If  /  were  to  decide  on  it,  and  require  my  clergy  to  conform  to 
what  /  deem  the  right  course  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  a  neighboring  Bish- 
op were  to  require  a  contrary  course  ;  it  would  be  entirely  schismatical — - 
a  thing  which  my  soul  abhorreth. 


85 

"  You  must,  I  think,  follow  the  dictates  of  your  own  consfieiice,  on  the 
case  before  you,  and  act  on  the  rules  of  general  charity.  Perhaps,  when 
we  meet  in  General  Convention,  (seeing  It  promises  to  afford  such  great 
subjects  to  set  us  on  talking,  and  every  one  speaking  his  own  sentiments.) 
seme  course  may  be  agreed  on  by  us  all,  in  which  the  matter  you  men- 
tion may  be  put  at  rest." 

This  answer  from  tlie  Bi.>hop,  was  very  soon  shown  to  Becker ; 
and,  from  it,  he  so  contended  that  his  desire  might  be  granted,  that, 
unhappily,"  consent  was  finally  given  ;  and  he  was  told  that  he 
might  offer  himself  for  communion  on  Christmas  day. 

In  the  meantime,  discrepancies  and  inconsistencies  came  tQ  be 
detected,  such  as  diminished  the  respondent's  confidence  in  him  ve- 
ry greatly  ;  but  yet  nothing  was  discovered  so  openly  and  manifest- 
ly wrong  as  to  cause  a  denial  of  the  privilege  which  had  been  conce- 
ded. Accordingly,  on  Christmas'  day^,  Becker  received  the  Holy 
Communion  at  the  hands  of  the  respondent,  in  St.  James'  Church. 
Directly  after,  one  and  another  spoke  to  the  respondent  on  the  sub- 
ject, alleging  Becker's  moral  unfitness  for  the  privilege  Avhich  had 
been  allowed  him  ;  representing  him  as  a  Sabbath-breaker,  a  profane 
person,  and  an  excessive  drinker.  This  led  to  a  closer  observation 
of  him,  by  which  all  that  had  been  alleged  of  him,  togetlier  with 
his  treachery  and  double-dealing  with  respect  to  the  respondent, 
came  to  be  discovered. 

In  view  of  all,  the  respondent  resolved  that  he  would  no  longer 
continue  to  him  the  privilege  of  communion  in  the  Church;  but,  that 
the  act  of  refusal  might  not  appear  to  him  as  simply  personal  with 
the  respondent,  his  repulsion  was  made  in  conformity  with  the 
Church's  law,  as  though  he  were  of  the  Church.  The  following 
was,  therefore,  privately  addressed  to  him  : 

^Ir.  a.  C.  Becker  : 

Sir — By  a  law  of  the  Church,  for  the  execution  of  which  every  minis- 
ter is  pledged  by  his  ordination  a'ows,  it  Is  made  the  duty  of  the  minister, 
"  if,  among  those  who  are  partakers  of  the  Holy  Communion,  he  shall 
know  any  to  be  an  open  and  notorious  evil  liver,  or  to  have  done  any 
wrong  to  his  neighbor,  by  word  or  deed,  so  that  the  congregation  be 
thereby  offended,  to  advertise  him  that  he  presume  not  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  Table,  until  he  have  openly  declared  himself  to  have  truly  repent- 
ed and  amended  his  former  evil  life,  that  the  congregation  may  thereby 
be  satisfied ;  and  that  he  hath  recompensed  the  parties  to  whom  he  hath 
done  the  wrong ;  or  at  least  declare  himself  in  full  purpose  to  do  so,  as 
soon  as  he  conveniently  may."  And  Canon  42  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion declares,  that,  "  If  any  persons  within  this  Church  offend  their  breth- 
ren by  any  wickedness  of  Ufe,  such  persons  shall  be  repelled  from  the  Ho- 
ly Communion,  agreeably  to  the  Rubric."     Such  is  the  Church's  law. 

That  these  rules  of  discipline  are  after  the  pattern  presented  in  Holy 
Scripture,  and  have  ever  been  acted  upon  by  this  Church,  as  good  and 
wholesome.  It  is  unnecessary  here  to  prove.  Painful  as  is  often  the  per- 
formance of  the  duty  thus  imposed  ujjon  the  minister,  he  is,  nevertheless, 
as  he  would  "  be  accounted  faithful,"  not  permitted  to  waver  in  its  dis- 
charge, or  neglect  to  "  advertise"  as  required. 

As  "  an  open  and  notorious  ovil  liver,"  as  stated  in  the  Rubric,  or  "  by- 
wickedness  of  life,"  as  It  Is  In  the  Canon,  exemplified  in  profanity  and  in- 
temperance, as  is  commonly  reported,  and  is  sufficiently  known  to  me, 
and  by  "  uncharitableness"  manifested  in  "  hurt  done  to"  your  ''  neighbor 
by  word  and  deed,"  you  have  given  such  offence  to  "  bretiren"  and  caus- 
ed the  Christian  name  and  profession  so  to  suffer,  as  to  make  It  my  duty 
to  "  advertise"  you  t!iat,  without  "  repentance,"  "  amendment,"  and  "  re- 


86 

compense"  so  far  as  may  be,  and  a  return  to  godly  unity,  you  *'  cannot  be 
sufliered  agaiu  to  be  a  partaker  of  the  Lord's  Table."  You  are,  therefore, 
hereby  repelled. 

An  account  of  this  act  of  canonical  discipline  has  been  submitted  to  '^h« 
Ordinary,"  to  whom,  I  may  inform  you,  you  can  appeal,  and  by  whom 
alone  you  can  be  restored.  (See  Art.  XXXUI.) 

That  you  may  speedily  obtain  a  just  sense  of  duty,  and,   "by  God's 
grace,  return  to  a  better  mind,  we  shall  not  cease  to  make  our  humble 
petitions  unto  Almighty  God  our  Heavenly  Father." 
Yours,  &c., 
(Signed,)  TV.  F.  WALKER. 

Easter  Even..,  1844. 

The  Bishop  was  thereupon  notified  as  follows : 

Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.  : 

My  Dear  Sir — I  have  this  day  repelled  from  the  Holy  Communion,  A. 
C.  Becker,  in  the  manner  and  tor  the  causes  set  forth  in  the  following  notice 
to  him  of  his  repulsion. 

His  profanity  is  notorious,  his  excess  in  drinking  as  much  so,  and  the 
hurt  done  by  him,  by  word  and  deed,  to  his  neighbor,  is  not  slight. 

Should  he  appeal,  particulars  will  be  mven.  f 

Yours,  faithfully, 
(Signed,)  W.  F.  WALKER. 

Easter  Even.,  ^April  6<A,]  1844. 

P.S.  Mr.  Becker  is  a  Lutheran  ;  one  of  those  who,  having  never  been 
confirmed  in  the  Church,  was  by  me  admitted  to  be  a  partaker  of  the  Ho- 
ly Communion,  for  the  time,  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  for  which 
vour  permission  was  given  in  the  fall.  Fer  restoration,  therefore,  not  on- 
ly "  repentance,  amendment,  and  recompense,"  will  be  necessarj' ;  but 
he  "  must"  also  "  be  confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  desirous  to  be  confirmed." 

To  this  letter  was  appended  a  copy  of  the  preceding  letter  to 
Becker. 

Two  weeks  after,  the  following  was  received  from  the  Bishop : 

To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  : 

My  Dear  Sir, — I  received  your  letter  dated  Easter  Even,  notifying 
me  of  your  suspending  from  the  Lord's  table  of  Mr.  Becker. 

The  same  mail  brought  his  appeal  to  the  Bishop.  This  is  to  inform  you 
that  the  trial  of  Mr.  B.,  wWch  you  have  mentioned  to  me,  and  which  I 
request  you  to  make  out  in  regular  form,  with  specifications  and  the  evi- 
dences sustaining  the  same,  will  take  place,  if  the  Lord  will,  at  the  time 
of  my  next  visit  to  Chicago,  which  will  probably  be  within  a  month  or 
six  weeks  from  this. 

With  devout  prayers  that  God  may  direct  us  in  the  way  of  truth  and 
righteousness, 

I  am,  dear  sir, 

Your  faithful  servant  in  the  Lord, 

PIHLANDER  CHASE. 

ISth  April,  1844. 

Supposing  that  the  "  particulars"  of  the  case  had  only  to  be  given 
to  the  Bishop  to  satisfy  him,  and  put  the  whole  matter  at  rest,  the 
respondent  had  resolved  to  await  the  Bishop's  arrival  in  Chicago,  to 
lay  them  before  him,  when  he  was  surprised  by  the  following : 

To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walkek  : 

Dear  Sir, — At  the  instance  of  Mr.  Becker,  I  have  ordered  a  Court  of 
Investigation  to  take  place  on  the  case  of  your  charges  against  him.  This 
Court,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Kellogg,  Bostwick,  and  Allanson,  will  at  the  timo 
and  place  mutually  agreed  on  by  Mr.  Becker  and  yourself,  meet  ia 
Chicago. 


87 

The  papers  will  be  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Kellogg. 
You  will  be   particular  in  all  your  specifications  in  proof  of  rour 
charges.     The  rules  of  justice  will  be  most  strictly  observed,  and  all  will 
await  the  final  decision  of  the  Ordinary. 

Your  faithful  servant  in  the  Lord, 

PHILANDER  CHASE. 
Jubilee,  April  27, 1844. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  at  this  time,  the  separation  had  taken 
place  between  St.  James'  and  Trinity  parishes,  and  that  the  oppo- 
sition of  those  who  figure  in  "  the  presentment  of  1844,"  was  at  its 
height.  With  those  persons,  without  conferring  with  his  presbyter, 
the  Bishop  had  been  so  in  correspondence  as  to  have  espoused 
their  cause.  This  was  first  shadowed  out  in  a  letter  of  Jan.  9th, 
wherein  the  Bishop  says,  "  I  have  given  the  above,"  (the  opinion 
on  page  34,  of  "  the  right  of  donors,"  «&c.,)  "  as  my  opinion  to  pri- 
vate persons  in  your  congregation,  touching  some  pretensions  which 
you  are  said  to  have  made  to  the  contrary  ;"  but  was  most  fully 
confirmed  by  the  following,  in  a  letter  of  Jan.  19th: 

"  As  the  Chief  Shepherd,  I  am  bound  by  an  oath  to  the  Great  Heav- 
enly Lord  to  see  that  His  lambs  be  fed  and  not  devoured  ;  and  for  this 
reason,  I  must  deal  plainly  with  you,  and  insist  on  an  alteration  for  the 
better  in  your  mode  of  treating  your  parishioners." 

How  far  his  suspicions  of  the  respondent,  and  his  jealousy  of  a 
foreign  influence  being  exerted  through  him,  had  been  excited,  id 
shown  by  the  following  : 

"  You  mention  '  our  Bishop'  in  your  letter.  Wliat  personage  didjyou 
intend  I  should  have  in  my  mind's  eye  when  you  wrote  these  words  ? 
Whoever  he  may  be,  please  to  inform  him  that  I  shall  never  consent  to 
become  the  tool  of  a  party  ;  no,  not  even  in  redressing  my  own  griev- 
ances. In  common  with  the  rest  of  the  Bishops,  I  have  by  the  Constitu- 
tion (I  wish  you  and  he  would  read  it)  a  "  visitatorial  power  to  put  things 
to  right  when  they  are  wrong  in  Kenyon  College;  and  this  right  will  be 
soon  exercised  if  the  Court  of  Chancery  in  Ohio  will  gi-ant  a  'Writ,'  em- 
powering the  '  Visitors'  to  make  inquiry  for  $15,000  kot  yet  ac- 
counted FOR.*  P.  C." 

The  Rev.  E.  B.  Kellogg,  too,  had  now  arrived  in  Chicago.  Al- 
most with  his  arrival,  and  immediately  in  connection  with  the  last 
letter  given  above,  was  commenced  by  him  the  performance  of 
those  peculiar  duties,  which  led  the  respondent,  on  his  trial  in  Aug. 
1846,  to  speak  of  him  ofiensively,  as  it  proved,  as  having  "dis- 
charged the  duties  of  ecclesiastical  constable,"  in  the  service  of  a 
summons,  mandatory,  respecting  the  points  stated  in  the  letter  ;  at 
the  same  time  requesting  an  agreement  as  to  "  time  and  place"  at 
and  in  which  the  Court  should  be  holden. 

The  respondent  refused  to  come  to  any  agreement  on  the  sub- 
ject, denying  the  right  of  any  such  jurisdiction  over  him.  He,  ac- 
cordingly, addressed  the  Bishop  thus  : 

Chicago,  May  4, 1844. 
To  the  Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.  : 

My  Dear  Bishop, — Your  letter  of  the  18th  ult.  informing  me  of  Mr. 
Becker's  appeal,  gave  me  notice  that  you  expected  him  to  have  a  "  trial," 

•  The  explanation  is  thns,  and  was  immediately  so  made  to  Bishop  Chase  :  The  re- 
spondent used  in  bis  letter  the  expression  'one  Bishop  thinks,'  &c.,  in  whision  to  Bp.  C.'» 
complaints  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine.  The  'one'  was  read  '  our,'  and  hence,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  feelings  which  had  been  excited,  this  outburst- 


S8 

ami  that  "  at  the  time  of  your  next  visit  to  Chicago,  probably  within  a 
njonth  or  six  weeks."  I  wa?  at  no  pains,  therefore,  to  "  give"  you  "  par- 
ticulars" in  the  case,  which  I  .saw  you  had  misapprehended,  thinking  the 
•whole  could  better  come  before  you  when  I  should  see  you  ou  your  pro- 
posed visit. 

Your  letter  of  the  27th  ull.  intimates  a  change  in  your  formerly  pro- 
posed course,  by  a  notification  of  your  having  "  ordered  a  court  of  inves- 
tigation on  the  case  of  my  cliarges  against  him,  to  moot  at  the  time  and 
place  mutually  agreed  on  by  Mr.  Becker  and  myself;"  and  a  request  to 
me  to  "  be  particular  in  all  my  specifications  in  proof  of  my  charges." 

Soon  after  the  receipt  of  tlii?  second  lotter.  the  Rev.  ]\Ir.  Kellogg  wait- 
ed upon  me,  with  a  communication  empowering  him  to  act  as  Chairman 
of  the  "  court  of  investigation,"  and  requested  me  to  name  a  time  for  the 
holding  of  said  comt,  which  sliould  be  in  concert  with  Mr.  Becker,  agree- 
ably to  the  tenns  of  his  commission,  and  also  of  your  letter  to  me. 

The  change  thus  indii.'atod  in  your  plan  relative  to  this  case,  renders  it 
necessary  that  I  should  now  give  you  a  st^itement  of  it,  which  will  enable 
you  to  understand  it,  and  not  wait  for  the  personal  interview  and  oppor- 
tunity for  verbal  explanation  at  first  contemplated.  This  I  am  especially 
required  to  do,  since  I  have  declined  to  name  a  date  for  the  holding  of 
the  court,  of  which  Mr.  Kellogg  is  to  inform  you,  or  to  be  engaged  in  a 
trial  to  which  no  duty  calls  me. 

I  promised  you,  in  my  notice  of  the  repulsion  of  ilr.  Becker,  that 
"  should  he  appeal,  particulars  should  be  ^iven." 

This  I  shall  fulfil  in  my  exposition  of  his  case,  and  of  the  grounds  of 
the  course  I  take  relative  to  his  trial. 

First,  then,  Mr.  Becker  is  not,  nor  was  he  ever,  in  any  sense,  a  member 
of  the  Prot.  Episcopal  Church;  he  was  never  received  into  it,  either  by 
baptism,  confirmation,  or  by  the  reception,  to  this  end,  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion. On  the  contrary,  he  came  before  me  as  an  avowed  Lutheran — 
a  member  of  that  Society  by  baptism,  confirmation,  and  communion.  His 
application  for  the  communion  at  my  hands  was  made  under  a  profession 
of  Lutheranisra,  as  laid  down  in  that  Confession,  which  he  could  not  re- 
nounce. He  wished  It  as  a  privilege  jiro  tempore,  because  of  their  being 
no  Society,  holding  his  views,  here,  with  a  clercyman  to  administer  the 
offices  of  that  system  of  worship,  and  to  relieve  bim  from  coming  forward 
in  an  effort  now  to  procure  a  Lutheran  clergvTnan  for  this  place.  He 
appeared  to  me,  at  the  time,  to  be  a  devout  man,  my  actjualntance  with 
him  having  been  short  and  partial,  an  intelligent  man,  and  one  who 
would  value  the  Communion  properly,  could  he  be  admitted  to  partake 
ofit. 

The  terms  of  communion  m  the  Church  I  put  plainly  before  him,  es- 
pecially the  provision  that  "  none  shall  be  admitted  to  communion  until 
he  be  confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  desirous  to  be  confirmed."  And  here 
was  the  difficulty.  To  submit  to  confirmation  at  your  hands  would  in- 
volve a  renunciation  of  Lutheranism,  and  an  adoption  of  the  Prot«stant 
Episcopal  svstem ;  and  for  this  he  was  not  prepared,  nor  could  he  ever 
be.  His  fathers  had  been  Lutheran,  as  he  could  trace  regularly  back  to 
Luther,  and  the  succession  3hould  not  be  broken  in  him.  He  wanted  to 
use  our  system  as  provisional  simplj' ;  and  he  wished  it  much,  for  unless  I 
could  yield  to  his  wishes,  he  must  live  at  present  without  the  higher  offices 
of  religion.  Embarrassed  by  the  application, — because  his  case  was  not 
alone,  ("  many  .such  cases  there  are"  here,) — and  wishing  to  do  what  I 
might,  (indeed  the  strength  of  this  wish  caused  my  embarras.sment,  else 
the  law  being  plain,  I  should  have  settled  it  by  a  dircf^t  negative,)  I  ad- 
dressed my  Bishop,  and  asked  his  directions.  Under  date  of  Nov.  16th,  I 
received  in  reply  the  following : 

"  I  received  your  letter,  and  answer  it  by  return  of  post,  about  admit- 
ting the  Lutherans  pro  tern.  The  snhieet  has  long  occupied  my  mind, 
(for  many  such  cases  there  arc  in  these  Wertem  States,  and  I  suppose  alf  Q 


89 

through  the  U.  States  ])  and  I  thiuk  ouglit  to  be  deelded  on  by  general 
consultation  of  all  the  Bishops.  It"  /  were  to  decide  ou  it,  and  requirw  my 
clergy  to  conlbrni  to  what  J  deem  the  right  course  ;  and,  at  Uie  same  time, 
a  neighboring  Bisliop  were  to  reiiuire  a  t-ontrary  comse ;  it  -would  be  en- 
tirely" schisniatieal — a  thing  which  my  soul  abhorretii.  You  must,  I 
think,  follow  the  dictates  of  your  own  conscience  on  the  case  before  you,  and 
act  on  the  rules  of  general  charity.  IVihaps,  when  we  meet  in  General 
Convention,  (seeing  it  promises  to  aflbrd  such  groat  subjects  to  set  us  on 
talking,  and  every  one  speaking  his  own  sentiments,)  some  course  may  be 
agreed  on  by  us  all,  in  wliich  the  matter  you  mention  may  be  put  at  rest." 

This  letter  I  showed  to  Mr.  Becker,  and,  his  urgency  continuing,  "  the 
dictates  of  conscience"  prompted  a  compliance  with  what  seemed  to  be 
'•  the  rules  of  general  charity ;"  thus  influenced,  I  told  him  to  have  what 
he  had  asked.  He  accordingly  offered  himself  lor  the  Conmiunion,  and 
•was  entered  on  the  Parish  Register,  "  Communicant,  temporarily,  being 
Lutheran." 

Subsequently,  my  views  of  Mr.  Becker's  fitness  for  the  continued  ex- 
ercise of  my  discretion  in  his  belialf,  underwent  an  entire  change.  '"The 
rules  of  general  charity"  could  no  longer  re(iuire  me  to  extend  to  him 
again  a  privilege,  whose  enjoyment  rested  alone  on  "  the  dictates  of  my 
own  conscience."  He  was  a  Lutheran,  receiving  the  communion  as  such 
at  my  hands,  without  a  claim  for  the  favor,  and  1  was  administering  it 
without  any  warrant  of  the  Church  for  so  doing ;  rather,  was  transcend- 
ing law  for  the  purpose,  though  under  permission  Irom  my  Bishop,  if  my 
conscience  should  thus  sanction.* 

When,  therefore,  1  "heard  with  my  ears"  Mr.  Becker  say,  "Damn the 
Church  !"  "  Damn  the  Ritual !"  and  use  other  like  expressions ;  and  on 

another  occasion  say,  "  You  are  a  d d  liar  !"'  and,  "  It  is  only  one  of 

the  many  d d  lies  you  have  told  since  you  have  been  in  Chicago  I" 

When  I  became  satisfied,  from  what  my  eyes  saw  and  my  ears  heard,  that 
he  "  was  a  busy  body  in  other  men's  mattei's,"  and  talked  of  his  neighbors 
to  their  hurt,  some  of  whom  were  communicants,  and  others  not ;  and, 
finally,  when  I  heard  him  commonly  spoken  of  as  an  excessive  drinker, 
the  quantity  which  he  was  known  from  actual  observation  to  drink  being 
named ;  when  he  was  seen  to  be  in  the  habit  of  resorting  to  bars  tor  drink 
on  Sundays,  and  spending  his  Sunday  aflernoons,  not  as  "  Canon  41  of 
the  General  Convention"  provides,  but  in  "  eating  and  drinking,"  and 
this  so  as  to  prove  a  scandal,  and  caus(!  it  to  be  reproachfully  siiid  to  me, 
'•  You  have  in  that  man  a,  consistent  Cliurch  member  I"  and  when,  at  last, 
I  saw  him,  as  I  should  at  once  have  said,  well-nigh  drunk  ;  when  all  this 
was  seen,  and  heard,  and  known,  by  mo,  I  would  not  again  admit  him  to 
our  communion. 

I  had  reason  to  think  that,  at  Easter,  he  would  offer  himself  for  the 
communion  ;  and  so  I  met  my  duty  the  day  before  by  sending  the  notice, 
a  copy  of  which  you  received. 

I  regarded  the  act  as  a  simple  withholding  of  a  privilege,  which  my  dis- 
cretion alone  had  granted,  and  for  which,  either  way,  my  conscience  was 
to  answer. 

Still,  it  was  a  repulsion,  and  the  letter  of  the  law  required  that  I  should 
report  it  to  you.  This  I  did  on  the  very  day  of  the  act.  And  my  notice 
to  him  stated  that  I  had  done  this,  with  the  information  that  he  could  ap- 
peal to  you,  by  whom  alone  he  could  be  restored.  Fori  supposed  you  to 
be  competent  to  permit  to  another  the  exercise  of  the  same  discretion  you 
had  permitted  me  ;  and  that  Mr.  B.,  if  you  were  disposed,  might,  my  suc- 
cessor being  willing  to  admit  him  on  such  pemilsslon,  be  allowed  to  par- 
take of  the  Holy  Communion  again,  as  he  had  done  before. 

Now,  agi'eeably  to  my  view,  in  the  repulsion  of  Mr.  Becker,  I  simply 
freed  myself  from  a  responsibility  which  my  Bishop  could  not  decide  tiiat 

•  This  permission  was  understood  as  simply  securing  acoinst  prosecution  for  a  breach 
of  law. 

12 


90 

I  sbofnIJ  assume,  and  which,  therpfore,  1  certainly  could  not  he  required 
to  bear  longer  than  conscience  should  dictate.  I  cannot,  therefore,  prop- 
erly, justly,  or  canonically,  be  called  upon  to  be  a  parly  to  a  trial  in  this 
case. 

He  not  being  a  "  person  within  this  Church,"  (Canon  42,)  our  law  ex- 
tends not  to  him  in  such  wise,  that  I  should  consent  to  have  more  to  do  in 
the  case.  Accordingly,  I  have  not,  nor  do  I  now,  prefer  charges.  I  have 
only  stated  the  reasons  which  governed  my  action. 

That  the  Bishop  may  "  institute  an  enquiry,"  in  the  case  of  "  any  per- 
son or  persons  within  this  Church,"  on  their  making  complaint  to  him. 
Canon  42  of  the  General  Convention  expressly  provides.  But,  even  then,  I 
do  not  see  that  it  must  be  in  the  form  of  a  trial,  to  which  the  repelling 
clergyman  is  a  party.*  However  this  may  be,  the  present  is  another  case, 
as  this  statement  has  shown. 

I  think  my  view  and  my  course  correct,  and  flatter  myself  that  they 
must  so  appear  to  my  Bishop.  I  shall  so  hold  them  till  otherwise  advised 
by  you,  at  least. 

I  am,  Rt.  Rev.  and  dear  sir, 

Your  faithful  Presbyter, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 

To  the  above,  the  following  reply  was  duly  served  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Kellogg : 

Jubilee  College,  May  9th,  1844. 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walkek  : 

Dear  Sir — In  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  4th  of  May,  which  I  received 
by  last  mail,  I  would  say  that  it  seems  to  me  reasonable  that  a  person  ac- 
cused of  immorality,  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  of  making  his  defence. 

Mr.  Becker,  having  been  admitted  by  you  to  our  conununion,  has  been 
by  you  accused  of  immoral  conduct ;  and  pleading  not  guilty,  has  sought 
for  a  hearing  of  his  case  from  the  Ordinary,  as  the  rules  of  our  Church 
direct.  To  put  him  by,  and  say  we  cannot  give  him  this  hearing,  on  the 
ground  of  his  not  having  been  dull/  admitted,  seems  to  me  unreasonable 
and  unjust. 

Whatever  irregularity  there  may  have  been  in  admitting  him,  the  same 
does  not  affect  the  main  question.  You  used  the  Canons  and  Rubrics  of 
our  Church  in  directing  you  how  to  accuse  him.  He  ought,  in  my  hum- 
ble opinion,  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  same  Canons  and  Rubrics  in  mak- 
ing his  defence. 

You  will,  therefore,  consider  yourself  as  respectfully  requested  by  the 
tenor  of  these  presents,  to  attend  at  the  Vestry  room  of  St.  James'  Church, 
on  the  thirty-first  day  of  May,  instant,  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  then 
and  there  to  substantiate,  by  lawful  evidence,  in  a  court  of  inquiry  which 
I  have  appointed,  the  charges  you  have  made  against  the  moral  character 
of  A.  C.  Becker,  as  contained  in  a  letter,  sent  by  you  to  me,  dated  "  Eas- 
ter Even,  1844." 

Your  friend  and  servant, 

PHH^AN.  CHASE,  Bp.  of  lU. 

The  following  reply  was  addressed  to  the  Bishop  ;  and  informa- 
tion having  been  received  that  he  would  be  in  Chicago  in  the 
course  of  the  day  in  which  the  letter  was  written,  it  was  enclosed 
to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kellogg,  with  a  request  that  he,  who  would  see 
the  Bishop  earliest,  would  hand  it  to  him,  on  his  arrival : 

Chicago,  May  30,  1844. 
To  the  Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase,  D.  D.  : 

My  Dear  Bishop, — Your  letter  of  the  9th  inst.,  permit  mc  to  say,  pre- 
sents no  grounds  sufl5cient  to  induce  a  change  in  the  conclusion  I  nad 

•  The  present  General  Canon  is  silent  on  this  subject,  and  there  is  no  Diooesaa  Canon 

with  respect  to  it. 


91 

formed,  and  expressed  to  you,  under  date  of  the  4th  inst,  relative  to  the 
case  of  Mr.  Becker.  That  which  is  urged  as  a  reason  why  I  should  take 
part  in  the  "inquiry"  appointed  for  to-morrow, — that  "Mr.  B.  has  been 
accused  by  me  of  imnioral  conduct,"  and  that  "  I  used  the  Rubrics  and 
Canons  of  our  Church  in  directing  me  how  to  accuse  him," — is  a  mistake, 
and  consequently  the  conclusions  btised  upon  it  cannot  hold.  Mr.  B.  has 
never  been  accused  by  me  in  any  way.  In  my  repulsion  of  him,  I  sim- 
ply assigned  "  causes"  for  the  act.  "  The  dictates  of  conscience"  had 
prompted  me,  under  permission  from  my  Bishop,  to  "  act  on"  what  seem- 
ed to  be  "  the  rules  of  general  charity,"  with  respect  to  Mr.  B.,  and  to 
extend  to  him,  for  the  time,  the  enjoyment  of  a  certain  privilege.  When 
circumstances  became  developed,  aflecting,  in  my  view,  the  moral  fitness 
of  Mr.  B.  for  the  further  enjoyment  of  that  privilege,  "the  dictates  of 
conscience"  prompted  my  withdrawal  from  the  responsibility  of  longer 
extending  it  to  him.  That  he  might  not  have  just  cause  of  complaint,  I 
did  this  in  the  form  of  a  repulsion  provided  by  the  Church  for  her  own 
members.  Here  was  my  "use  of  the  Rubrics  and  Canons."  I  employed 
them,  that  Mr.  B.  might  sec  how  clear  was  my  duty  in  the  case  of  those 
of  the  "  members  of  this  Church"  who  "come  to  be  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Communion,"  who  should  olFeud  in  a  specified  manner,  and  so,  by  an  easy 
inference,  justify  my  course  towards  himself  who  was  without, — who  was 
was  with  us  only  on  the  sufferance  of  my  conscience.  My  letter  to  you 
containing  my  notice  to  Mr.  B.  of  his  repulsion,  and  mailed  at  the  date  of 
that  repulsion,  presents  at  its  conclusion  the  following,  afi[brding  this  same 
exposition  of  my  act,  contemporaneously  with  it :  "  Mr.  Becker  is  a  Lu- 
therian  ; — one  of  those  who,  having  never  been  confirmed  in  the  Church, 
was  by  me  admitted  to  be  a  '  partaker  of  the  Holy  Communion'  for  the 
time,  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  for  which  your  permission  was  giv- 
en in  the  fall.  For  restoration,  therefore,  not  only  '  repentance,  amend- 
ment, and  recompense'  will  ba  necessary;  but  he  'must also  'be confirm- 
ed, or  be  ready  and  desirous  to  be  confirmed.' " 

Here  was  distinctly  presented  the  view,  that  this  was  not  a  case  to 
which  the  Church's  law,  regarding  expulsion  and  restoration,  could  be  at 
once  applied ;  but,  that,  in  addition  to  all  which  is  required  in  cases  of 
which  the  law  takes  cognizance,  the  cases  of  her  own  members,  before 
Mr.  B.  could  be  restored  through  me,  even  by  the  Bishop,  "  he  must  be 
confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  dcsii-ous  to  be  confirmed."  I  supposed  that, 
on  his  appeal,  this  would  be  pointed  out  to  him ;  and  that  he  would,  in 
consequence,  see,  that  to  again  enjoy  the  privilege  of  communion,  he 
must  "  prepare  himself  according  to  the  preparation  of  the  sanctuary." 
This  supposition  arose  naturally  out  of  the  position  which  you  had  taken 
in  your  letter  to  me  of  Xov.  16th,  not  to  decide  on  the  admission  of  such 
persons,  for,  that  it  might  be,  in  a  certain  event,  "  entirely  schismatical ;" 
but  to  leave  them  with  the  clergymen  in  whose  charges  they  might  be,  to 
be  admitted  or  refused  at  their  discretion,  unless  they  should  aoply  as  is 
required  of  the  children  of  the  Church;  in  which  case,  conformity  to  the 
Church's  law  would  entitle  them  to  communion,  or  to  an  inquiry,  as  the 
Rubrics  and  Canons  provide,  on  an  .appeal,  if  they  should  be  repelled.  At 
the  same  time,  I  believed,  as  stated  to  you  in  my  letter  of  the  4th  instant, 
that  if  he  could  justify  himself  to  j'ou,  you  were  "competent  to  permit  to 
another  the  exercise  of  the  same  dis.',>retion  you  had  permitted  me,  and 
that  Mr.  B.,  if  you  were  disposed,  might,  my  successor  being  willing  to 
admit  him  on  such  permission,  be  allowed  to  partake  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion again  as  he  had  done  before." 

You  will,  therefore,  please  excuse  my  declining  to  be  considered  Mr. 
Becker's  accuser.  I  stated  to  him  and  to  you  "causes"  for  my  discontifi- 
uance  of  the  exercise  of  a  certain  discretion  in  his  behalf:  this  is  all.  I 
preferred  no  charges,  for  I  anticipated  no  trial  in  a  case  to  which  there 
was  no  law  to  apply-  I  promised  you  that,  •'  should  he  appeal,  particulars 
would  be  given."     That  promise  I  made  good  in  my  letter  of  the  4<^ 


92 

Those  particulars  were  with  me  "  causes"  which  determined  my  action,' 
if  my  Bishop  deems  them  insufficient,  or  doubts  my  ooui-se,  1  shall  re- 
gret not  to  be  allowed  more  of  his  ronfidenee.  With  Mr.  Becker,  I  can 
have  nothing  to  do.  My  vie^vf  of  him  was  partially  given  in  my  letter  of 
the  4th,  since  which  he  has  further  so  prostituted  liim^oit  before  me,  that 
I  must  regard  him,  mor.ally,  as  one  of  the  most  undeserving  of  men. 

That  it  was  within  my  province,  under  the  circimistances,  now  famil- 
iar, under  which  Mr.  B.  came  to  be  a  partaker  of  the  Holy  Communion 
in  the  Church,  at  any  time  when  it  should  cease  to  be  my  pleasure  longer 
to  continue  to  him  the  privilege  he  had  enjoyed,  through  me,  to  withhold 
it  from  him,  and  so  to  repel  him,  without  assigning  "  causes"  for  the  act, 
without  a  reference  to  the  Ruljrics  and  Canons,  and  without  giving  an 
account  of  the  same  to  the  Ordinary,  i.=-.,  I  suppose,  unquestioned.  There 
could  then,  of  course,  be  no  "  inquiry,"  and  certainly  there  could  be  no 
direct  restoration ;  for  the  Bishop  could  not  more  consistently  readmit 
than  he  could  in  the  first  instance  decide  that  his  pres])yter  should  admit 
such  a  person  ;  the  principle  involved  in  both  cases  would  be  the  same. 
Can  my  consideration,  then,  in  assigning  "causes"  for  what  I  did,  and  in 
adducinff  the  IluV>rics  and  Canons  to  show  that  the  course  observed  to- 
wards him  was  only  that  which  I  should  be  bound  to  observe  towards 
"  the  members  of  this  Church,"  so  change  the  whole  case  as  to  place 
Mr.  B.  in  possession  of  rights, — otherwise  confessedly  not  his, — the 
rififhts  of  the  children  of  the  Cluirch  ?  Can  it  have  made  him  a  "  member 
of  this  Church"  Avho  was  no  member,  and  so  render  me  justly  liable  to  be 
challenored  by  him  to  the  vindication  of  a  course  which  rested  with  my 
conscience  simply,  on  his  appoal,  "  in  a  court  of  inquiry,"  "  by  lawful  ev- 
idence ?"    I  cannot  so  view  the  matter. 

Tiiat  the  case  of  Mr.  B.  has  gone  to  the  public,  is  to  be  attributed  sole- 
Iv  to  himself  /  gave  it  to  you  and  himself  only.  If,  thereibre,  he  com- 
plains of  being  aggrieved,  because  of  the  position  into  which  he  has  been 
brought  relative  to  the  Church  through  me  having  come  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  public,  the  complaint  must  be  against  himself  simply. 

My  complaint  might  be  that  I  was  so  imposed  upon  by  him  in  the  first 
instance  ;  and  then,  when  I  have  discharged  a  duty  for  which  I  alone 
must  answer,  at  the  tribunal  of  conscience  here,  and  at  that  of  my  Maker 
and  my  Judge  hereafter,  this  should  be  laid  hold  of,  as  I  will  assure  you, 
Bishop,  it  seems  to  have  been  by  some  here,  as  another  and  available 
means  of  oppression  and  persecution.  But  as  I  have  borne,  so  will  I  still 
bear,  God  helping  me,  ivithout  complaint.  I  rely  upon  I  he  integrity  of  my 
cause,  upon  the  faithfulness  of  the  Master  I  ser\e,  "  Who  knoweth  how  to 
succor,"  and  upon  the  dispassionate  consideration  of  my  Bishop.  "  Audi 
alteram  partem"  is  a  rule  which  I  have  full  confidence  will  be  observed 
with  regard  to  all  the  matters  concerning  which  complaint  has  been  made 
to  vou.*  That  the  Spirit  of  Grodmay  then  guide  to  a  right  judgment  is 
all  that  I  can  ask. 

I  trust  my  Bishop  will  appreciate  the  assurance  of  unfeigned  regret 
which  is  experienced  when,  on  the  strength  of  views  now  before  him,  I 
decline  a  compliance  with  his  "  respectful  request"  to  me  to  participate 
"  in  a  court  of  inquiry"  "  appointed"  on  the  case  of  IMr.  A.  C.  Becker,  to 
be  holden  "  at  the  Vestry-room  of  St.  James'  Church"  to-morrow. 
With  sentiments  of  dutiful  regard, 

I  am,  Rt.  Rev.  and  dear  sir, 

Your  faitliful  presbyter, 

W.  F.  WALKER. 

It  subsequently  transpired  that  "  the  Court"  met  at  the  time  and 
place  appointed ;  but,  the  respondent  not  being  present,  broke  up, 
without  considering  the  case. 

*  In  this  confidence  the  respondent  was  most  sadly  disappointed.  Hi«  Bishop  ad- 
judged him  "  guilty"  without  a  hearing  in  any  way. 


93 

Having  heard  of  the  Bishop's  arrival  in  the  city,  asreeablj  to' 
expectation,  and  of  his  having  taken  up  his  quai'ters  with  the  fam- 
ily of  Kinzie,  known  to  himself  to  be  most  opposed  to  the  respond- 
ent, where  his  ears  must  of  necessity  be  filled  with  prejudiced  state- 
ments, and  w^hcre  very  few  of  the  respondent's  friends  cared  to  go, 
instead  of  with  his  presbyter,  who  had  cordially  invited  him  to  ac- 
cept the  hospitalities  of  his  house,  anticij)ations  of  a  no  very  pleas- 
ing or  promising  character  wei'e  entertained,  when,  on  the  morn- 
ing of  Saturday.  June  1st,  a  call  upon  him  was  resolved  upon. 

About  10, o'clock,  A.  M.,  the  call  was  made.  The  Bishop's  tes- 
timony sets  out  what  had  taken  place.  "  For  some  reason  or  oth- 
er," said  he,  (and  those  reasons  are  contained  in  the  above  corres- 
pondence,) "  Mr.  Walker  had  refused  to  obey  my  orders  as  his 
Bishop.  There  were  then  three  clergymen  in  town,  to  "whom  I 
gave  the  information,  and  required  them  to  present  Mr.  W.  for 
trial,  in  consequence  of  his  having  broken  his  ordination  vows. 
They  did  present  him  as  having  broken  his  ordination  vows." 

That  presentment  is  as  follows  : 

Chicago,  June  1st,  1844. 
At  a  meeting  composed  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  P.  Chase  and  four  of  liis  Pres- 
byters, the  following  question  Avas  put  by  the  Bishop  to  each  of  his  Pres- 
byters, viz  :  Do  you  think  that  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker,  in  refusing  to 
appear  at  the  time  and  place  appointed,  to  make  good  his  charges  against 
A.  C.  Becker,  has  violated  the  spirit  of  his  ordination  vow? 

The  answer  to  this  question  was  in  the  aifa-matlve,  by  the  following 
Presbyters : — 

E.  B.  KELLOGG, 
Wm.  ^Y.  BOSTWICK, 

Wm.  allanson, 
dudley  chase. 

This  document  is  addressed  to  the  Bishop,  here  present. 

E.  B.  KELLOGG, 

Secretary  of  the  meeting. 

The  respondent  had  but  just  entered  the  room,  when  he  was  ac- 
costed by  the  Bishop,  thus :  "  You,  sir,  are  the  man  who  has  bro- 
ken his  ordination  vows  ;  and  you  are  presented,  sir — you  are  pre- 
sented. There — read  that," — pointing  to  the  above  presentment ! 
lying  on  the  table.  Then,  shaking  his  hand,  clenched,  with  start- 
ling emphasis  in  the  respondent's  face,  he  said,  with  an  eai'nestness 
almost  peculiar  to  himself,  "  You  have  got  to  come  down,  sir, — you 
have  got  to  come  down  !"*  The  respondent  took  up  the  paper  and 
read  it ;  when  the  Bishop  said  to  him,  "  When  will  you  be  ready 
for  trial,  sir  ?"  The  reply  was,  "  At  any  time, — on  Monday  next, 
if  you  please."  But,  after  a  moment's  reflection,  the  answer  was 
varied,  thus :  "  I  will  take  some  tune  to  consider  my  position,  and 
wiU  then  communicate  with  yon."  After  which,  i-ising  to  leave, 
the  respondent  said,  '"  Bishop,  I  suppose  you  will  officiate  for  me 
part  of  the  day  to-morrow  ?"  When,  with  an  accustomed  and  pe- 
culiar emphasis.  Bishop  Chase  said,  "  No,  sir, — I  dont't  think  I'll 
officiate  for  you  at  all:  I  regai'd  you  as  ipso  facto  suspended,  sir  ; 
the  case  is  so  clear." 

*  With  what  devotion  the  purpose  thus  declared  has  been  pursued,  from  that  date  to 
this  pteseat,  the  papers  wliicn  this  publication  presents  sufficiently  show. 


94 

The  respondent  counselled  with  his  friends,  as  to  what  course  he 
should  now  take;  Canons  XIV.  and  XV.  of  18.'3«  were  examined, 
by  which  it  appeared  that  the  Bishop,  though  a  party  in  the  case, 
might  be  Judge ;  hence  it  was  thought  that  the  respondent  might 
as  well  admit  the  penalty  at  once,  as  to  submit  to  any  such  trial  as 
he  would  be  able  to  obtain.  It  was  decided,  therefore,  that,  while 
he  should  reserve  his  oion  vieio  of  the  case,  he  should  "  bend  to  the 
powers,"  against  which  to  attempt  to  stand,  under  the  circumstan- 
ces, as  the  law  then  was,  would  be  to  be  broken.  Accordingly,  the 
followijQg  note  addressed  to  the  Bishop  that  afternoon  : 

Chicago,  June  1,  1844..    . 

Right  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, — Allow  me  to  assure  you  that  your  "  request" 
to  me  to  appear  before  the  "  Court  of  Enquiry  a])pointed"  by  you  "  on 
the  case  of  A.  C  Becker,"  was  not  understood  in  the  sense  oi  an  admoni- 
tion to  which  a  canonical  obedience  would  be  required.  Since  that  con- 
struction has  been  put  upon  it  by  yourself,  my  view  of  the  case  must  yield 
to  my  conviction  of  the  duty  of  submission  to  my  Bishop,  and  I  hereby 
consent  to  "  substantiate  in  a  Court  of  Enquiry,"  on  Monday  morning 
next,  at  10  o'clock,  at  the  Vestry-room  of  St.  James'  Church,  the  causes 
I  have  alleged  as  the  grounds  of  my  repulsion  of  JNIr.  Becker. 
Yours  dutiiully, 

^Y.  F.  WALKER. 

P.  S. — May  I  ask  that  the  Chairman  of  that  Court  summon  the  late 
Wardens  and  Vestrj-men  of  St.  James'  Church,  or  so  many  of  them  as 
may  be  now  in  the  citj-,  to  appear  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned,  to 
give  in  evidence  what  they  may  know  toucliing  the  charges  alleged  in 
this  case  ? 

On  Monday  morning,  the  Rev.  E.  B.  Kellogg  called  on  the  re- 
spondent for  "  specifications  of  charges,"  which  he  said  the  Bishop 
required ;  also  that  the  respondent  should  appear  by  Counsel.* 
Thus  was  a  regular  suit  insisted  upon. 

B.  S.  Morris,  Esq.,  in  a  spirit  which  has  ever  chai*acterized  him 
with  respect  to  the  respondent,  a  spirit  corresponding  with  that  of 
the  Counsel  in  August,  1846,  came  generously  forward,  without 
fee  or  reward,  or  hope  of  the  same,  and  gave  himself  to  the  respon- 
dent's defence ;  for  in  a  trial  of  him  it,  in  effect,  resulted.  The  re- 
port of  the  trial  is  interesting,  corresponding  very  nearly  with  the 
two  reports  already  presented,  but  is  too  long  to  be  inserted  here. 

The  Bishop  was  trier,  or  Judge,  and  finally  gave  his  decision 
thus ; 

In  making  known  my  decision  in  the  case  of  the  appeal,  made  to  rae 
by  Mr.  A.  C.  Becker,  against  the  sentence  of  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker, 
repelhng  him  from  the  Holy  Commuuion,  it  is  necessary  to  review  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  decision  is  based ;  for  that  purpose  the  foUowiDg 
paper,  read  at  the  opening  of  the  Court,  will  first  be  read. 

Be  it  kxowx,  that  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker,  did,  sometime  in  A.  D. 
1843,  being  at  the  time,  Rector  of  St.  James'  Church,  in  this  place,  admit 
to  the  privileges  of  a  communicant  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  Mr.  A.  C.  Becker,!  *  confirmed  mem- 

*  The  inconsistency  in  requiring  Counsel  at  one  time,  and  denying  the  same  at  an- 
other, is  etriking.    The  Counsel  now  demanded  and  accepted  wasnot  a  communicant. 

1  Kot  so;  he  was  permitted  to  commune  in  the  Church  temporarilj  ;  fcut  was  not 
admitted  to  the  "jvift/fgcj  of  a  communicant''  ,,   . 


\xt  of  the  [Danish]  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,*  in  the  use  of  a  discre- 
tion generally  conceded  as  being  the  right  of  the  Rector  iu  such  cases, 
of  which  the  Rev.  ^V.  F.  Walker  was  duly  advised  by  the  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese,  on  application  made  to  hira  for  information. 

On  Easter  Even  last,  the  said  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker  did  proceed  to  repel 
from  the  Holy  Communion,  the  said  A.  C.  Becker,  and  duly  notify  him 
of  the  same,  and  also  the  Ordinary,  according  to  Canon,  and  referred  it 
to  him  as  "a  case  of  Canonical  discipline,"  alleging  as  the  grounds  of  said 
repulsion,  notoriously  immoral  and  uncharitable  conduct  in  the  party  re- 
pelled. Said  Walker  did  also  inform  the  repelled  party  that  he  might, 
according  to  Canon,  appeal  to  the  Bishop,  and  that  he  could  alone  be  re- 
stored by  him  to  Communion.  The  repelled  parly,  did  rightly  make 
such  appeal,  and  demand  an  investigation  of  the  alleged  causes  of  his  re- 
pulsion. Agreeably  to  such  request,  the  Bisho^t  of  the  Diocese  did  nom- 
mate  the  Rev.  E.  B.  Kellogg,  the  Rev.  Wm.  AV.  Bostwick,  and  the  Rev. 
Wm.  AUanson,  to  be  a  Court  of  Inquiry,  to  investigate  facts,  and  to  ob- 
tain evidence,  upon  which  the  judgment  of  the  Bishop  might  be  based, 
and  inform  the  parties  of  the  same,  and  request  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker 
to  appoint  a  time  of  meeting.  The  Rev.  W.  F.  AValkcr  did  refuse  to  fix 
any  time,  and  allege  as  a  cause  of  said  refusal,  that  said  A.  C.  Becker  had 
never  been  a  member  of  the  Church.  Upon  the  case  being  again  refer- 
red to  the  Bishop,  he  overruled  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker's  judgment  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Becker,  and  adjudged  that  he  was  entitled  to  use  the  Canons 
of  the  Church  to  whose  communion  he  had  been  admitted,  in  defence  of 
his  character  in  the  alleged  causes  of  his  repulsion,  and  moreover  did 
fix  a  day,  Fiiday,  .31st  of  M.ay,  1844,  for  the  meeting  of  tlie  Court  above 
named,  in  the  vestry  room  of  St.  James'  Church,  Chicago,  and  respect- 
fully request  both  parties  to  attend.  The  Court  assembled  at  the  time 
and  place  mentioned.  Mr.  A.  C.  Becker  appeared.  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker 
did  not  appear  personallj-  or  by  proxy  ;  whereupon  the  Court  adjourned. 
The  Bishop  having  been  Informed  of  the  issue,  required  the  opinion  of 
four  of  his  presbyters  whether  they  judged  that  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker 
had  broken  the  spirit  of  his  ordination  vows,  by  neglecting  to  attend  the 
Court  of  Inquiry,  when  officially  requested  so  to  do  '?  The  four  present 
answered  in  the  affirmative,  viz :  Messrs.  Kellogg,  Bostwick,  Allanson, 
and  D.  Chase,  and  signed  an  mstrument  of  writing  addressed  to  the 
Bishop,  to  that  efiect,  (a  copy  of  which  instrument  was  furnished  Mr. 
Walker.) 

Whereupon,  after  deliberation,  the  Eev.  W.  F.  Walker  addressed  the 
Bishop,  alleging  that  the  cause  of  his  non-attendance  was  a  mistake  in 
not  consldermg  the  official  request  in  the  fight  of  an  injunction  to  attend,f 
and  offering  to  meet  the  Court  of  Inquiry  on  Monday,  June  3d,  at  1 0  A. 
M.,  for  the  purpose  of  submitting  to  the  investigation  of  the  case. 

Whereupon  tids  Court  is  now  opened  for  that  end, 

(Signed)  P.  CHASE,  Bishop. 

Monday,  10  A.  M.,  Jur.e  3, 1844. 
The  Court  duly  assembled  in  the  Vestry  Room  of  St.  James;  Bishop 
Chase,  presiding.  Counsel  was  allowed  on  both  sides  in  this  case.  Rev. 
W.  F.  Walker  appeared  by  his  Counsel,  B.  S.  Morris,  Esq. ;  Mr.  A.  C. 
Becker  appeared  by  his  Counsel,  I.  N.  Arnold,  Esq. ;  Mr.  A.  Hunting- 
ton, Secretary  for  recording  evidence. 

♦This  pretension  was  entirely  new,  set  up  expi-cssly  for  tliis  defence  of  the  Bishop ; 
or  in  his  own  words, ''  review  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the  decision  is  based."  A 
plausible  fou.,dation  for  the  course  re,';olved  on  was  felt  to  be  needed ;  and  an  ingenu- 
ity equal  to  the  emergency  supplied  this  before  unheard-of  pretext.  It  was  never  a.?- 
serted  or  made  till  presented  by  the  Bishop  in  this  pap'^r.  It  is  therefore  a  fraudulent 
plea,  introduced  for  a  make-weight  against  the  respondent. 

t  The  respondent  never  said  a  word  about  "  mistake,"  as  is  here  asserted ;  there  was 
no  "  mistake ;"  he  retained  his  original  understanding  of  the  case  throughout,  and  re- 
tains the  same  to  this  day.  His  letter  to  the  Bishop,  (page  94,)  wonld  seem  to  be  too 
plain  to  allow  of  Eucb  a  statement. 


ye 

The  first  question  raised  in  the  regular  course  of  (rial,  was  that  of  Ju- 
risdiction, i.  «.,  the  right  ot  the  persou  appealing  to  be  heard  on  that  ap- 
peal. This,  it  was  contended  by  the  repelling  party,  he  had  not,  because 
lie  was  not  regularly  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  Church  Communion. 
It  was  decided  by  the  Court  that  the  question  was  settled  by  a  common 
principle  of  justice, — that  he  who  was  subject  to  the  rf/sc/^j/me  of  the 
Church,  was  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  her  protective  laics,  in  the  defence 
of  his  Christian  Character,  when  accused,  whatever  informality  there 
might  have  been  in  his  admission  And  as,  moreover,  in  this  case,  the 
Rector  used  the  authority  and  directions  of  the  Canons  and  Rul)rics  of 
the  Church  in  repelling,  and  did  himself  acknowledge  the  right  of  ap- 
peal in  the  person  so  debarred  from  the  Communion,  it  was  decided  by 
the  Court  that  he  had  a  right  to  be  heard  on  that  appeal,  and  have  his 
case  adjudged  by  the  Bishop.* 

The  second  question  raised  was  a  request  by  the  repelled  party  to  be 
furnished  with  specifications  of  facts,  under  the  general  charges  of  im- 
moral conduct,  by  which  it  was  alleged  the  act  of  repulsion  was  sustained. 
It  was  decided  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  plaintiff  to  furnish  the  accused 
such  specifications,  that  a  just  opportunity  might  be  given  to  produce 
rebutting  testimony.  Accordingly  the  following  alleged  causes  of  the 
repulsion  of  Mr.  A.  C.  Becker,irom  the  Holy  Communion  by  Rev.  "W. 
F.  Walker,  was  produced  in  Court.f 

The  causes  alleged  by  me  for  the  repulsion  of  ]\Ir.  A.  C.  Becker,  and 
which  I  shall  endeavor  to  substantiate  by  lawful  evidence  in  the  Court  of 
Inquiry  appointed  on  the  case,  are  : — 

First,  Profaniti/ — i.  e.,  the  use  of  language  commonly  deemed  profane, 
in  the  presence  of  J.  B.  F.  Russell,  in  ti\e  City  of  Chicago,  prior  to  his 
repulsion  at  Easter  last,  and  since  the  first  day  of  October,  A.  D.,  1843; 
and  before  others  in  said  City. 

Second;  Excess  in  Druxkinc] ; — i.e.  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquor  or 
liquors  to  such  extent  as  to  be  commonly  deemed  excessive,  at  the  City 
Hotel  in  the  City  of  Cliicago,  since  October  last,  and  prior  to  his  repul- 
sion ;  and  at  divers  other  places  in  the  City  of  Chicago  ;  also  in  carrying 
it  in  his  pocket  for  his  use  at  his  pleasure. 

Third;  Hurt  done  to  his  neighbor  bi/  word  and  deed, — i.e.,  having  so 
spoken  of  his  neighbor,  and  so  given  himself  concern  in  his  affairs  as  to  be 
commonly  regarded  as  inflicting  essential  hurt;  to  wit :  to  the  Rev.  W. 
F.  AValker,  and  through  him  the  Church,  by  the  use  of  abusive  language 
addressed  to  him  on  Clark  st,  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  on  or  about  the 
23d  March,  A.  D.  184-i,  and  also  in  being  actively  engaged  in  fomenting 
ill-feeling  against  said  Walker,  about  tlie  time  last  albresaid,  with  and 
amongst  the  brethren  of  the  Church,  and  in  pursuing  (by  his  opposition) 
him,  said  Walker,  to  the  breaking  up  of  tlie  said  Walker's  Pastoral 
connexion  with  St.  James'  C'-urch,  to  the  hurt  of  said  Walker,  and  of  a 
large  body  of  his  parishioners,  as  they  have  formally  alleged. 

(Signed)  W.  F.  WALKER. 

The  3d  charge  and  the  specifications  accompanjing  it  were  not  sus- 
tained, no  evidence  being  offered  to  that  effect;  upon  trial  it  was  with- 
drawn.J 

•  The  "  Court"  here  means  Bishop  Chase. 

It  was  a  further  decision  of  this  "  Court,"  "that  any  person  who  has  received  baptism 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  claim  the  Gom- 
munion.and  cannot  be  deprived  of  it;"  thus  null  il'yinp;  every  restrictive  provision  of  the 
Church,  though  bound  upon  Bishops  and  Clergy  by  the  oaths  of  ordination. 

t  This  question  was  raised  and  determined  by  the  '•  Court,"  before  it  opened  in  the 
Vestry-room.  (See  statement  on  page  94.)  The  "specifications,"  so  termed,  were 
banded  to  the  Rev.  Ezra  B.  Kellogg,  in  obedience  to  the  Bishop's  mandate,  in  the 
morninff.  The  Bishop  had  them,  therefore ;  and  by  him  they  were  "  produced  in 
Court ;"  not,  however,  until  there  had  been  some  contradiction  about  their  having 
been  furnished,  and  some  confusion  tending  to  the  prejudice  of  the  respondent. 

t  No  evidence  was  offered  under  "  the  3d  charge."    It  bad  come  to  be  pretty  well 


On  the  Isl  and  2il  cliar^fs  and  .^pfxnlio.atioiis,  tin-  loUowinj^  is  tlic  opirl* 
ion  and  decision  of  the  Bishop.  They  are  both  fsnstaincd,  in  part,  iti 
POINT  OF  FACT.  Thc  acoused,  therefore,  stands  reproved,  and  is  herf(l)y 
solemnly  exhorted  to  repent  and  amend.  "' 

But  in  point  o{  moral  turpitude,  the  true  intent  of  the  Rubric  author- 
izing a  repulsion  from  the  Holy  Communion  has  not  been  fulfilled.  It 
is  as  follows : 

'*  If  among  those  who  come  to  be  partakers  of  the  Holy  Communion 
the  minister  shall  know  any  to  be  an  open  and  notorious  evil  liver,  or  to 
have  done  any  wrong  to  his  neighbors  by  word  or  deed,  so  that  thc  con- 
gregation be  thereby  offended,  he  shall  advertise  him  that  he  pi  esume 
not  to  (>ome  to  the  Lord's  Table  until  he  have  openly  declared  himself  to 
have  truly  repented  and  amended  his  former  evil  life,  that  the  congrega- 
tion may  thereby  be  satisfied,  and  that  he  hath  recompensed  the  parties 
to  whom  he  hath  done  wrong ;  or  at  least  declare  himself  to  be  in  full 
purpose  to  do  so  as  soon  as  he  conveniently  may."  ■•) 

This  Rubric  is  founded  on  the  Word  of  (xod,  Avhicli  is  as  follows,  JMatt* 
18thc.,  15,  16,  17  vt;.* 

"  If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  be- 
tween thee  and  him  alone.  If  he  shall  hear  thee,  tJiou  hast  gained  thy 
brother.  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  M'ith  thee  one  or  twO' 
more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  es- 
tablished. And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  Church  ; 
but  if  he  negle(;t  to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen 
man  and  a  publican." 

Gal.  6:1.  "  Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  which  are 
spiritual  restore  -euch  an  one  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  considering  thyself 
lest  thou  also  be  tempted." 

The  Canon  of  the  Church  refers  t©  the  Rubric,  and  Rubric  carries  into 
olTcct  the  injuncj;ion  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  whei"ein  the  Rubric  is  silent 
as  to  the  inethod  of  carrying  the  Scriptural  injunctions  into  efiect,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  Bishop  to  judge  whether  the  intcni  of  the  Rubric,  as  founded 
oi*  Scripture,  has  been  fulfilled  ornot.f 

In  this  case  of  the  repulsion  of  Mr.  Beckr-  troni  the  communion  of  St. 
James'  Church,  Chicago,  the  injunctjious  of  the  Rubric,  as  interpreted  by 
the  Word  of  Gk»d,  have  not  been  complied  with.  It  was  the  duty  of  the 
Rev.  Rector  of  St.  James'  Church  to  have  admonished  Mr.  Becker  before 
he  repelled  him  from  the  communion,  of  the  faults  contained  in  his  charge 
of  being  an  excessive  drinker.  Instead  of  this,  it  appears,  on  evidence, 
that  he  was  intimate  with  Mr  B.  for  some  time,  and  drank  "with him,  one 

understood  that  the  aim  was  indirectly  to  try  the  respondent ;  and  that  "  tJie  3d  charge'" 
was  to  be  the  available  means  "  to  that  effect."     Tlierefore.  it  was  withdrawn. 

"  Notes,"  by  a  friend,  taken  at  the  time,  furnish  thc  folIowinf{ : 

"  The  Counsel  for  the  Hector  here  offered  to  withdraw  the  third  spocifitation  ;  but  the 
inipartiiil  Court  decided  it  would  be  evidence  the  plaintiff  could  prove  nothing.  New 
as  this  charge  embraced  •  tattling,' and  that  amony  women,  it  was  thijught  advisable 
to  withdraw  it,  rather  than  liave  an  infuriated  Sewing  Society  brought  on  to  the  stand. 

"  Some  desultory  conversation  ensued,  and  the  third  charge,  by  agreement,  was 
dropped." 

*  This  assertion  so  unhesitatingly  made,  is  original  with  Bishop  CSase.  And  by  all 
who  examine  the  matter,  it  isust  certainly  be  admitted  to  require  a  degree  of  theologi- 
cal acumen  not  less  than  th«t  which  distinguishes  hira,  to  discover  the  shadow  of  a  re- 
lation between  the  Rubric  and  the  Scripture,  so  undoubtingly  alleged  to  be  its  foun- 
dation. The  discovery  was  timely,  and  valuable  for  its  application  to  this  case.  It  af- 
forded a  turn  upon  tlic  respondent  that  probably  was  as  gratifying  as  it  certainly  was 
indelicate,  unkind,  and  unjust. 

It  will  here  be  seen  that  JIatt.xviii.  15-17,  was  once  in  the  mind  of  Bishop  Chase, 
in  connection  with  what  was  professed  to  be  ecclesiastical  ju.stice  ;  however  aeeply  it 
may  be  rec;retted  that  the  impression  was  not  such  as  to  iufiuence  him  permanently  in 
the  line  of  its  teachings.  But  when  its  application  would  require  duties  to  be  perform- 
ed that  might  favor  the  respondent,  it  appears  to  have  been  entirely  lost  sight  of;  in 
no  instance  has  it  been  recognized  in  respect  to  him,  except  in  the  above,  when  it  was 
wrested  into  a  connection  in  which  obviously  it  does  not  beloug,^and,  contrary  to  testi- 
mony, made  to  bear  against  him. 

t  This  opinion  is  so  monstrous,  beyond  any  precedent  that  has  ever  been  furnished 
by  a  Protestant  Bishop,  that  it  cannot  fail  to  attract  merited  uoticc,  and  show  the  loae 
at  its  author,  without  comment  by  the  respondent. 

13 


time,  a  glass  of  spirits,"  and  Rt  another,  **  in  company  with  a  third  pcreoc, 
one  bottle  of  Claret,  and  half  a  quart  bottle  of  Madeira  or  Sherry  wine."* 

From  this  testimony,  it  appears  that  Mr.  A.  C.  Becker  has  not  been 
dealt  with  according  to  the  true  intent  of  the  Rubric,  which  is  to  promote 
penitence  in  the  offender,  as  well  as  to  remove  scandal  from  the  Church. 

The  Bishop,  therefore,  does  not  sustain  the  repuhiun  of  Mr.  A.  C.  Beck- 
er from  the  Holy  Communion,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Walker,  but  considers  him  at 
a  communicant  admonished  of  his  fault,  and  exhorted  to  repentance  and  a 
godly  life.\ 

PHIL.  CHASE. 
Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  Chh.  in  111. 

Jtcne  4th,  '44,  Chicago,  111. 
To  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Walker. 

Thus  was  Becker  restored  to  what  the  Bishop  had  decided  h^ 
could  not  say  should  be  granted  him,  lest  it  should,  in  a  certain 
event,  lead  to  results  "  entirely  schisraatical ;"  restored  to  what  was 
never  his,  and  what,  within  a  very  few  days,  on  the  steamboat,  be- 
tween Chicago  and  Buffalo,  by  the  grossest  dissipation,  he  proved 
himself  unfit  to  enjoy. 

And  thus  vN^as  fastened  on  the  respondent  an  enemy  whose  boasi 
it  was  that  he  could  and  would  crush  the  respcuident,  for  he  had  the 
Bishop  on  his  side. 

His  work  was  immediately  commenced;  with  what  succes.s  he 
andKinzie  prosecuted  it,  aided  by  some  few,  mostly  of,  or  in  alli- 
ance with  their  families  '^the  presentment"  that  followed,  "  Mf  pre- 
sentment of  1844,"  is  evidence. 


N,  page  29. 
The  letter  referred  to  may  be  seen  on  page  68. 

•  To  the  statements  in  this  paragraph,  the  respondent  excepted  at  the  tinsc.  as  foI!ow» 

"  1st.  That  I  did  not  admonish  Mr.  Becker  before  lii«  repulsion,  does  not  appear  in 
the  evidence,  and  cannot  tlieretbre,  consistently,  be  so  stated  ;  and, 

".2d.  That  I  '  drank  with  liim,  and  a  third  person,  one  bottle  of  Claret,  and  half  b 
(luart  bottle  of  Madeira  or  S^herry  wine,'  the  ovidiuce  does  not  show.  It  was  in  evi- 
dence most  expiicitiv  that;  on  the" occasion  lelerrcd  to,  ladie.>  '.vere  at  the  table,  in  ad 
dition  to  the  gentleriien  named;  and  this  was  true  to  the  nuniliur  of  three  ;  thus  making 
the  total  who  participated  in  the  wine  six,  at  least,  iu-'^tcad  of  ihrec  only,  as  the  d*-cii- 
ion  untruly  asserts." 

Why  were  these  points  thus  strained  beyond  the  testimony  ?  Did  justice,  or  cliarity 
or  truth  require  it? 

tOn  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Becker  above  given,  a  friend  propa^ed,  at  the  tim<  ,ili« 
following  queries : — 

'■  1st.  Can  a  Lutheran,  communinp  in  the  Church  on  sufferance,  if  repelled,  have  the 
right  of  appeal  as  contemplated  in  Canon  XLIL? 

•  2d.  Becker  having  been  a  communicant  on  sufl'ernnce  simply,  can  Bishop  Chaw, 
under  the  advice  ijivcn  in  hi.s  letter  to  the  Kector  of  Kov.  lUMi,  coDiisteutly  or  rieht- 
I'ully  entertain  his  appeal  ? 

'■  M  Can  a  Lutheran,  or  other  dis.<=enter,  who  lefuscs  to  submit  to  the  Rubrics  and 
Canons  of  the  Church,  specially  a^  regards  conflrmation,  claim,  to  ttaud  on  a  footing, 
iQ  point  of  jjrivi'eRe,  with  loyal  members  of  the  Church  ? 

■'4tli.  (;an  a  dissenter  who  owuh  not  allegiance  to  the  Church,  and  contemns  her 
laws,  claim  the  i)rotection  of  the  (  hurch,  orthe  application  of  her  laws,  in  yindicatinj 
iiimself  against  the  e.\pres9  torms  of  those  laws' 

■'  6th.  Can  Bisliop  Cnase  compel  hi.s  prc-bytcr  to  appear  as  prosecutor  on  appeale,  in 
,iHf  case;  but  nivire  especially  in  the  ca.se  of  a  dissenter? 

•'  Gth.  Does  the  right  of  appeal  extend  to  Mormons,  who,  under  the  decision  of  Bian- 
i>p  Chase,  hat^i;?  been  bapjiwd  Uttj^Cl  >>«^|SiOf  the  Trinity,  may  claim  the  right  oi 
Communion  in  the  Church  ?"         '       '     '  ' 

—  ,<.j '.i  iii-y.:  ■'•■■I'  '"   '•'■  '■■■ 

<d.t  baa  .jx'  .u  beth^w 


6)C 


Efci2 


V 


V^' 


^ 


